Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 366 (RAJ)

Ganga Devi v. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer

2014-02-04

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 1.2.13 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the respondent no. 4 to 11 herein aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.12 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ramsar appointing Commissioner for site inspection, stands allowed. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and division of holding before the Assistant Collector, Ramsar accompanied by an application under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act"). During the consideration of the application seeking temporary injunction, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order 26, Rule 9 and Order 39, Rule 7 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner for site inspection. The application was allowed by the trial court observing that for determination of the question involved, it is necessary to obtain the factual report in respect of the disputed land. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred a revision petition under Section 230 of the Act before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. The revision petition has been allowed by the Board holding that inspection of the site at this juncture will tentamount to assist a particular party to glean evidence. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated 5.6.12 has been set aside and the trial court has been directed to decide the application of temporary injunction on merits in light of evidence produced by both the parties ignoring the site inspection report. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue has erred in observing that the application for site inspection was made to create evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the site inspection report was requisitioned by the trial court after due consideration of the controversy involved and therefore, the Board has erred in interfering with the order without appreciation of law in correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the trial court, the site inspection report had already been submitted by the Tahsildar and therefore, it was open for the respondents/plaintiffs to file objections, if any. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the trial court was not required to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the trial court was not required to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this court in the matters of Shabbir v. Parwati Bai & Anr., 2013 (20) RBJ 29 and Shanu Baheti v. Municipal Council, Pali & Anr., 2012(2) RRT 1210 and Rajeev v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2011(1) RRT, 624. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 5. Indisputably, the purpose of local investigation is to obtain such evidence, which from its peculiar nature can only be had on the spot with a view to elucidate any point which is left doubtful on the evidence produced before the court. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the suit is at the initial stage and the evidence of the parties has not commenced as yet. A perusal of the order dated 5.6.12 reveals that the trial court has not requisitioned the site inspection report as such but has directed the Tahsildar, who was appointed as Commissioner to submit the factual report after inspection of the site and examination of the revenue record on the points specified. In the considered opinion of the court, at this juncture, when the parties to the suit have not even commenced the evidence and the matter is being considered by the trial court for the purpose of grant of temporary injunction as prayed for by the respondents/plaintiffs, the factual report requisitioned in the terms indicated in the order amounts to creating evidence in favour of a particular party, which is beyond the purview of Order 26, Rule 9 and Order 34, Rule 7 CPC. 6. In view of the discussion above, the decisions of this court upholding the order passed by the trial court appointing Commissioner for local investigation taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of particular case, do not help the petitioners in any manner. 7. 6. In view of the discussion above, the decisions of this court upholding the order passed by the trial court appointing Commissioner for local investigation taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of particular case, do not help the petitioners in any manner. 7. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the order passed by the trial court appointing Commissioner does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******