Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1397 (RAJ)

Sanjiram alias Sanjay v. Mohar Singh

2010-08-06

G.K.TIWARI

body2010
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (in short `the Act') against the impugned order dated 20.5.09 of Additional Collector (Second) Alwar. 2. The facts, in brief, related to the case are that Naib Tehsildar Tapukada (Alwar) passed an order dated 20.2.09 attesting the mutation No. 480 of village Husaipur Patwar Circle Sare Kalan in Alwar district. Aggrieved against the mutation order dated 20.2.09 of Naib Tehsildar, the non-petitioner filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Act before Additional Collector (Second) Alwar who passed the impugned order dated 20.5.09 for maintaining status quo of the land and record till 12.6.09 which was fixed as the next date of hearing. The petitioner-respondent has challenged the impugned order through the revision petition in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order was passed by Additional Collector (Second) Alwar without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-respondent. Presently the disputed lands stand mutated in favour of the petitioner by the mutation order dated 20.2.09 against which the appeal filed by the non-petitioner-appellant is time barred. Additional Collector Alwar should have rejected the appeal on the basis of its being time barred. But Additional Collector, on the contrary, has passed the impugned order for maintaining status quo of the land and record which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner who is a khatedar tenant of the disputed land; as such the impugned order should be set aside. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner pleaded that the impugned order was valid only upto 12.6.09; so this order was not in existence at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.2.10. Thus, this revision has become infructuous being filed against an order which does not exist. The learned counsel cited 2000 RRD 441 in support of his contention. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order and gone through the material on record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 20.5.09 shows that it is about maintaining status of the land and record till 12.6.09. The learned counsel cited 2000 RRD 441 in support of his contention. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order and gone through the material on record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 20.5.09 shows that it is about maintaining status of the land and record till 12.6.09. Perusal of the court file of Additional Collector Alwar shows that this interim order for maintaining status quo of the land and record has not been extended beyond 12.6.09. Evidently, the impugned order of Additional Collector was not in existence on 24.2.2010 when the revision petition was filed in this Court. Thus, this revision petition is directed against an order which is currently neither in operation nor in existence. This revision, therefore, has become infructuous being directed against a non-existant order. I am fortified in holding this view by the pronouncement of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court as reported in 2000 RRD 441 and judgment of this court as reported in 2003 RRD 266 = RLW 2003 RJ 555. Besides it, the impugned order is an interim order against which revision is not maintainable under Section 84-A of the Act. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 9. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. Pronounced.