Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 147 (RAJ)

Sunil Kumar v. Gurukul Chittorgarh

2012-01-12

PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, SUBODH AGRAWAL

body2012
AGRAWAL, M.—This order will decided the fate of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent No.1 dt. 26.4.2011 by which special appeal filed, under Sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (herein-after to be referred as "the Act" by the present appellant has assailed on the prime ground that against the order rejecting revision, special appeal is not maintainable. 2. We have heard the contentions of rival parties and perused the record. 3. In support of the contentions raised in the preliminary objection, learned counsels for the respondent No. 1 submitted that appellant has filed a special appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Bench of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 17.3.2011 by which the learned Single Bench has rejected the revision petition. As Section 77(B) of "the Act" specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against the order rejecting an application for revision, therefore, the preliminary objection may be allowed and the special appeal be dismissed as not maintainable. The learned counsels for the respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on the following judgment:- (i) 1969 RRD page 318 (ii) 1975 RRD page 587 (iii) 1976 RRD page 167 (iv) 2006(2) RRT page 1263 (v) 2000 RRD page 132 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that though Section 77 of "the Act" creates a bar for filing appeal against an order rejecting an application for revision, but word "appeal" does not include special appeal; therefore, Section 77 of the "the Act" has no relevancy in the present case and the preliminary objection based on Section 77 of "the Act" may be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has prayed to decide the objection on merits. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and scanned the matter carefully. 7. This fact is not in dispute that learned Single Bench of this Board has rejection the revision petition on 17.3.2011 filed by the appellant. This fact is also admitted that Section 77(b) of "the Act" creates a bar for filling appeal against an order rejecting an application for revision. Now this question remains that whether the word "appeal" includes special appeal or not. This fact is also admitted that Section 77(b) of "the Act" creates a bar for filling appeal against an order rejecting an application for revision. Now this question remains that whether the word "appeal" includes special appeal or not. In this regard, in catena of cases as cited by the learned counsels for the respondent No. 1, it is consistently held that provisions of Section 77(b) of "the Act" are mandatory and it definitely bars a special appeal in terms of Section 10 of "the Act" against an order rejecting a revision petition. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the preliminary objection filed by the respondent No. 1 deserves acceptance; hence accordingly allowed and the special appeal filed by the appellant is rejected as not maintainable. Pronounced in open Court.