Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1304 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Durga Dan through L. Rs.

2009-05-12

H.R.PANWAR

body2009
Hon'ble PANWAR, J.—By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order (Annex.3) dated 3.8.93 passed by respondent Board of Revenue as also the order dated 30.7.1992 (Annex.2) passed by Additional Commissioner, Colonization and Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner have been assailed by the petitioner State. 2. I have heard learned Govt. Counsel as also the counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner State that the Assistant Commissioner, Colonization by judgment Annex.1 dated 20.9.1982 corrected the record in respect of File No. 372 in favour of the private respondents on a suit filed by respondents under Section 88, 89 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The copy of the order dated 20.9.1982 was applied for on 6.11.1982 as the appellant came to know of the order only on 6.11.1982. The copy of the order was not made available and therefore, again the copy was applied for on 20.8.1985 which was delivered to the petitioner State on 3.10.1985 and therefore, the petitioner State was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal in time against the order Annex.1 dated 20.9.1982. The appeal came to be filed in the year 1985. The Additional Commissioner, Colonization cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner vide Annex.2 dated 30.7.1992 dismissed the appeal on the ground of barred by period of limitation. Likewise, the respondent Board of Revenue, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner State against the order of Assistant Commissioner, Colonization and Revenue Appellate Authority, by order dated 3.8.1993 on the ground of limitation. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay in applying the copy of the order was less than 3 months and therefore, the authorities below ought to have condoned the delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Colonization (Annex.1) dated 20.9.1982 and the certified copy annexed with the writ petition, shows that the copy was applied on 20.8.1985 almost after a period of about three years and no explanation has been furnished for such an inordinate delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Colonization (Annex.1) dated 20.9.1982 and the certified copy annexed with the writ petition, shows that the copy was applied on 20.8.1985 almost after a period of about three years and no explanation has been furnished for such an inordinate delay. According to learned counsel for the respondent there is absolutely no material on record to show that the copy of the order dated 20.9.1982 came to be applied on 6.11.1982, it is only a bald statement not supported by any documentary evidence on record. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as also carefully gone through the material available on record. 6. It appears that on a suit under Section 88, 89 and 188 of the Act filed by contesting respondents before the Assistant Commissioner, Colonization, the order Annex.1 dated 20.9.1982 came to be passed on the basis of the evidence produced before it. The contesting respondents came with a case that they are in possession of the land since coming into force of the Act i.e. Samwat 2012 corresponding year 1955 and produced evidence. From the evidence and the Parcha Lagan, the residential house, water reservoir etc. were found at the site and according to the contesting respondents, they have been in cultivatory possession since the year 1955 when the Tenancy Act came into force. The petitioner State failed to controvert the evidence produced by the contesting respondents. The Additional Commissioner, Colonization cum Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, concurrently found that the appeal filed by the State before the appellate authority was hopelessly barred by period of limitation and no explanation for such inordinate delay has been put forth. The stand of the State that they filed the application for copy of the order dated 20.9.1982 on 6.11.1982 was not found to be correct, rather was contrary to the record which is evident from Annex.1 as Annex.1 shows that the copy was applied on 20.8.1985 after almost three years from the date of the order and accordingly dismissed the appeal as also the revision filed by the State. 7. In my view, the courts below were justified in passing the orders impugned. 7. In my view, the courts below were justified in passing the orders impugned. I do not find any error in the orders impugned warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.