Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1102 (RAJ)

Bhikha v. Board of Revenue

2009-04-22

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2009
Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable find any reason to consider interference in the order dated 08.01.2003 (Annex.8) as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board') in Appeal Decree No.93/95/Pali; and in the order dated 05.06.2008 (Annex.9) as passed by the Board in Review Application No.1487/03/Pali. 2. The revenue suit filed by the petitioners under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 18.10.1993; but the appeal taken to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali was allowed on 30.12.1994 and the suit was decreed. The judgment and decree dated 30.12.1994 were challenged by the defendant State of Rajasthan in second appeal before the Board. 3. During the pendency of the second appeal, private respondents, said to be the concerned villagers, were ordered to be impleaded as parties by the order dated 28.01.2002 (Annex.7). It appears that certain documents were filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and the same, having been considered relevant and necessary for just disposal of the matter, were taken on record by the order dated 05.04.2002. 4. While deciding the appeal on 08.01.2003, the learned Members of the Board have referred to the documents produced in appeal and found questionable the rights as asserted by the plaintiffs. However, while partly allowing the appeal, the learned Members of the Board have directed sending of the original documents as filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to the Trial Court; and have issued directions that after examining the documents and extending an opportunity of hearing to both the sides, the matter be decided in accordance with law. It appears that against the order dated 08.01.2003 the petitioners chose to prefer a review application before the Board that has been decided after about five years and the Board, by its order dated 05.06.2008, has found no error apparent on the face of record so as to call for a review. 5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the view as taken by the Board in its orders dated 08.01.2003 and 05.06.2008 cannot be said to be wholly unjustified nor the impugned orders could be said to be leading to manifest injustice. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. 6. 5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the view as taken by the Board in its orders dated 08.01.2003 and 05.06.2008 cannot be said to be wholly unjustified nor the impugned orders could be said to be leading to manifest injustice. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that remanding of the matter by the Board has practically relegated the parties to the initial stage and it would take rather longer time in deciding the matter. In this regard, suffice is to observe that it is always open for the petitioners to make a request to the learned Trial Court to consider the age of the litigation and to deal with the matter in priority. There is no reason to assume that if any such request is made by the petitioners to the Trial Court concerned, the same would not be given due consideration. No further comments are requisite in this regard. 7. There being no grounds for interference in writ jurisdiction, the writ petition stands rejected.