Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 906 (RAJ)

Suraj Narain v. State of Rajasthan

2010-04-26

DALIP SINGH, M.N.BHANDARI

body2010
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—By a writ petition, the orders dated 28.1.2000 and dated 28.11.2002 passed by the competent authority exercising its jurisdiction under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 had been challenged. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that in Para 10 of the writ petition incorrect statement of fact has been mentioned. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, but contrary to the aforesaid, statement was made that the impugned order was passed without an opportunity of hearing. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner appellant had challenged two orders. First order was passed on 26.1.2000, whereas second order was passed on 28.11.2002. Opportunity of hearing was not provided while the order dated 28.1.2000 was passed and Para 10 of the writ petition was containing facts in respect of the aforesaid order only. It is thus, prayed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge may be set aside. 4. We have perused the order as well as record. 5. Perusal of Para 9 of the writ petition shows that the date of impugned order is mentioned to be 28.11.2002 and not of 28.1.2000, in Para 10, it was mentioned that the opportunity of hearing was not provided, thus Para 10 was read in continuation of Para 9. 6. On composite reading of Paras 9 and 10 of the writ petition, it comes out that the learned Single Judge had rightly taken impugned order in reference to the averment of Para 9 to be of 28.11.2002. The aforesaid order was passed after hearing the petitioner. Thus, averments made in Para 10 of the writ petition become incorrect. 7. The fact further remains that even if the order dated 28.1.2000 is looked into, it was passed after issuance of notice to late Smt. Keli Devi (petitioner's mother). When service was not effected personally, notice was published in the newspapers and thereupon proceedings were undertaken. 8. In view of the aforesaid also, it cannot be said that without notice, the order dated 28.1.2000 was passed. If para 10 of the writ is in reference to the order dated 28.1.2000 then also the aforesaid order was passed after issuance of notice in the newspaper, in view of the aforesaid also, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is an per the record and documents available therein. 9. If para 10 of the writ is in reference to the order dated 28.1.2000 then also the aforesaid order was passed after issuance of notice in the newspaper, in view of the aforesaid also, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is an per the record and documents available therein. 9. Apart from the aforesaid issue i.e. service of the notice on the petitioner-appellant before passing the order, the fact further remains that while deciding the application on 28.11.2002, matter was kept for final hearing on 7.12.2002. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to inform as to what happened thereupon. It is further a fact that while passing the order dated 28.11.2002, the authority made it clear that the issue regarding title and payment would be determined in proper proceedings for which the petitioner-appellant would be at liberty to take up the case before the competent Court. 11. With the aforesaid, it is not coming out as to what grievance remains with the petitioner-appellant. This is more-so, when the counsel for the appellant submits that the civil suit has already been filed by the appellant herein. 12. In our opinion, the observations made in the impugned order dated 28.11.2002 make it clear that the final determination of title and payment would be in the competent proceedings, if initiated. 13. In the light of the discussions made above, we do not find any ground to interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed having no merit. The stay application also stands dismissed.