Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 784 (RAJ)

Chhitar v. Board of Revenue

2008-03-13

N.K.JAIN

body2008
Honble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Plaintiff-respondents filed a revenue suit for declaration and possession in respect of the disputed property before the Assistant Collector, Chhabra, who decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.1987. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, which was decided on merits in absence of appellants vide judgment and decree dated 20.06.1998. The plaintiffs moved an application for review of the said order before the Revenue Appellate Authority contending therein that the appeal could not have been decided in absence of appellants on merits and at the most it could have been dismissed in default. The review petition was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.1998. Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred by the defendants wherein the order dated 25.07.1998 dismissing the review petition was challenged. The revision petition was also dismissed by the Revenue Board vide order dated 23.01.2003, hence this writ petition has been preferred by the defendants challenging the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Board and the Revenue Appellate Authority, dismissing their review petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Revenue Appellate Authority committed an illegality in dismissing the appeal in absence of appellants on merits whereas it could have been dismissed only in default, therefore, the said order was apparently illegal and the same should have been reviewed and the Revenue Appellate Authority committed an illegality in dismissing their review petition. The Revenue Board also committed the same illegality, therefore, their orders are liable to be set-aside. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition and contended that the defendants did not challenge the original order i.e. the original order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 20.6.1998 by way of second appeal before the Revenue Board and the order dated 25.7.1998 was challenged only by way of revision petition, therefore, the present writ petition, which is directed against the order rejecting the review petition, is not maintainable as merits of the case cannot be and should not be examined by this Court. 5. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for both the parties agree that the orders dated 20.6.1998, 25.7.1998 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the order dated 23.1.2003 passed by the Revenue Board, may be set-aside and the case may be remanded back to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, to decide the appeal filed by the defendants on merits after hearing both the parties. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and I find merits in the same. 7. The Revenue Appellate Authority was not justified in deciding the appeal on merits in absence of the appellants, therefore, I think it fit and proper in the interest of justice and as agreed by both the parties, the matter may be remanded back to the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the appeal filed by the defendants against the order dated 11.11.1987 passed by the Assistant Collector, on merits after hearing both the parties. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.01.2003 passed by the Revenue Board and the orders dated 20.06.1998 and 25.07.1998 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, are set aside. The appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1987 is restored to its original number and the Revenue Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal filed by the defendant-appellants on merits after hearing both the parties. Both the parties are directed to maintain the status-quo in respect of the disputed land during the pendency of appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 9. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, on 28.04.2008. The Revenue Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties. The matter has already been delayed, therefore, it is expected from the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the appeal as far as possible preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed by this Court for appearance of both the parties. There will be no order as to costs.