Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1837 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on an application filed by the respondents No.4 & 5 seeking vacation of the interim order dated 17.10.2014 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby it was directed that the status quo with regard to the disputed land be maintained. 2. With the consent of the parties and looking to the nature of the dispute involved, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act') before the Collector, Bhilwara inter-alia questioning the partition map (tarmim) said to have been executed on 11.6.1989 in pursuance to the partition affected between the then khatedars of land comprised in Khasara No.1051. 4. The land had been transferred to the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 & 5. The Collector by order dated 31.12.2012 (Annex.13), after noticing the contentions raised by the petitioner herein, indicated that the khatedars of the disputed land who are affected parties have not been impleaded, and the appeal has been filed based on the sale deeds, which have not been given effect to in the revenue records and consequently, dismissed the appeal after condoning the delay. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 27.6.2013, after noticing the contention of the parties and the order passed by the Collector observed that the order does not appear to be against the law and dismissed the revision petition. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector and Board of Revenue fell in grave error in dismissing the appeal/revision filed by the petitioner only on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties. It was submitted that all the three khatedars of the land comprised in Khasara No.1051 were impleaded as parties and the other ground regarding the revenue record not having been changed in pursuance to the transfer is factually incorrect and drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-4 pg. 30 and Annexure-5 pg. 31 to 33, wherein the land stands recorded in the names of three parties which were before the District Collector. 7. 30 and Annexure-5 pg. 31 to 33, wherein the land stands recorded in the names of three parties which were before the District Collector. 7. It is submitted that both the grounds taken by the learned Collector are factually incorrect and the Board of Revenue has simply reiterated the finding without application of mind and therefore, the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be set-aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner along with the respondents were applicants for allotment of Retail Outlet, however, the petitioner having failed to secure allotment in his favour have raised several issues, which have not substance and made submissions on merits of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector. 9. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on 26.7.2013. However, the present writ petition has been filed on 16.10.204 after inordinate delay and in the meanwhile, the respondent has changed his position, inasmuch as, vide Letter of Intent dated 10.10.2013, the retail outlet has been allotted to him and he has already undertaken extensive work and invested money and therefore, the writ petition be dismissed on account of latches. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. The learned District Collector by its order dated 31.12.2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner after condoning delay on two grounds, as noticed here-in-before, for non-impleadment of necessary parties and for non-recording of land in the name of the petitioner and respondents No.4 & 5. Both the grounds given by the Collector appears to be wholly non-existent, inasmuch as, Khasara No.1051 stands transferred in favour of the petitioner and respondents No.4 & 5, who admittedly, were before the District Collector. The ground that transfer has not been recorded in the revenue records is also found factually incorrect, inasmuch as, Annexures-4 & 5 filed with the writ petition clearly indicate to the contrary. The ground that transfer has not been recorded in the revenue records is also found factually incorrect, inasmuch as, Annexures-4 & 5 filed with the writ petition clearly indicate to the contrary. The Board of Revenue surprisingly without considering any of the submissions made by the petitioner after simply reiterating the facts and the order of the District Collector has observed as under:- " ftyk dysDVj us bl vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dh vihy vLohdkj dh gSA fo}ku ftyk dysDVj HkhyokM+k dk mDr fu.kZ; fof/k fo:) izrhr ugha gksrkA vihykFkhZ us dfFkr lgefr i= dh izfr Hkh izLrqr ugha dh gSaA " 12. The way the matter has been dealt with by the Board of Revenue apparently cannot be appreciated, wherein no consideration whatsoever has been made and simply the order passed by the District Collector has been upheld. 13. In view of above discussion, the orders passed by the District Collector and Board of Revenue cannot be sustained. 14. So far as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent are concerned, the issues raised have not at all been examined by the District Collector and/or the Board of Revenue on merits and therefore, the same needs to be examined in detail and it is not expected from this Court to turn itself into the fact finding authority so as to examine the contentions raised by the parties on merits of the dispute. 15. So far as the issue of delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, it is no doubt true that the petitioner has approached this Court after delay, however, the orders passed by the authorities below, are final in nature, inasmuch as, the petitioner looses any further right to question the issues raised before the two authorities below, and the orders have been found here-in before to be lacking in bare minimum requirements under the law, the delay itself cannot be sufficient to non-suit the petitioner. 16. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the District Collector and order dated 27.6.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue are set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Collector to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits as expeditiously as possible. The ad interim order passed by this Court on 17.10.2014 stands vacated. The order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the District Collector and order dated 27.6.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue are set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Collector to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits as expeditiously as possible. The ad interim order passed by this Court on 17.10.2014 stands vacated. It would be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim remedy, if available under the law.Petition allowed. *******