Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1422 (RAJ)

Urban Improvement Trust, v. Board of Revenue

2011-07-19

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—Heard counsel. 2. Issue notice for final disposal. The service on performa respondent No. 1 is dispensed with. The learned Government Counsel Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat accepts notice for the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel Mr. Khet Singh appears for the respondents No. 3 to 10. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at this stage itself. 4. A suit for declaration and injunction as filed by respondents No. 3 to 10 herein came to be decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa by the judgment& decree dated 28.6.2006. The appeal filed against the judgment & decree so passed by the learned Trial Court came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur (`the RAA') on 22.8.2007. However, by the impugned judgment & decree dated 7.8.2009, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (`the Board') proceeded to revenue the decree so passed by the RAA and affirmed the decree of the Trial Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is unable to approve the manner of dealing with the matter by the Board and so also by the RAA. 6. A look at the judgment dated 7.8.2009 passed by the Board makes out that without dealing with the judgment passed by the RAA, the Board essentially preferred to rely on the judgment of the learned Trial Court and allowed the appeal. On the other hand, it appears that the RAA also dealt with the first appeal in a rather cursory manner where it referred to the submissions as made by the parties and then, abruptly proceeded to reverse the decree as passed by the learned Trial Court. It was expected of the appellate authorities that they had framed the points for determination and then decided the matter in accordance with law. The Board when found that the RAA did not deal with the matter pointwise, it could have considered remanding the matter for consideration afresh. It was expected of the appellate authorities that they had framed the points for determination and then decided the matter in accordance with law. The Board when found that the RAA did not deal with the matter pointwise, it could have considered remanding the matter for consideration afresh. Likewise, the Revenue Appellate Authority ought to have considered the matter on relevant points for determination; and if the judgment as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was found not in accord with law or any part of the record having not been considered or dealt with properly, it could have either considered remanding the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for decision afresh or could have appreciated the entire record and passed appropriate judgment. Both the appellate revenue authorities having not examined the record in entirety, it appears just and proper to remand the matter to the first appellate authority i.e., the RAA. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent that the impugned judgment dated 7.8.2009 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and so also that passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated 22.8.2007 are set aside. This matter is remanded to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur; and Appeal No. 239/2006 before the said Appellate Authority shall stand restored for consideration afresh and in accordance with law. 8. The parties through their counsel appearing in this Court shall stand at notice to appear before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur on 17.8.2011. 9. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, No costs.