Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 432 (RAJ)

Shri Jai Jinendra Sewa Sangh v. Vijayraj M Parmar

2014-02-10

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 22.11.13 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein under Section 84 read with Section 9 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ( for short "the Act of 1956"), against the order dated 17.9.13 of Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Pali, has been disposed of with the directions to the trial court to decide the stay petition preferred by the petitioners herein within a period of one month and till then, the order dated 17.9.13 passed by the trial court directing the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the disputed land at the site as also in the revenue record, has been stayed. 2. The relevant facts are that one Shri Sampat Raj s/o Ganesh Mal holding the land measuring 5.12 hectares comprising khasra no. 58 of village Somesar, District Pali, gifted 1 hectare out of the said land to the petitioner no.1, a charitable trust in the year 1991. The land transferred in favour of the petitioner trust was allotted khasra no. 58/92. The remaining 4.12 hectare land was sold to Shri Vijay Raj and Smt. Kanchan V Parmar, the respondent no.1 & 2 herein, jointly on 9.3. by way of registered sale deed. After mutation of the land in their favour, the respondent no.1 & 2 got the land converted for developing a residential colony vide order dated 10.5.13 passed by the District Collector, Pali. It is alleged that the location of the said land measuring 4.2 hectare was changed and consequently, it overlapped the petitioner's land. In these circumstances, the petitioners made an application for correction of error before the Sub Divisional Officer, Rani, which is pending consideration. However, since the conversion order was passed in relation to the changed location of the land, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1953 before the RAA questioning the legality of the conversion order. The petitioners also preferred a stay petition seeking interim relief in terms that the effect and operation of order dated 10.5.13 passed by the District Collector may be stayed and the status quo may be maintained in respect of the disputed land in the revenue record and at the site. The petitioners also preferred a stay petition seeking interim relief in terms that the effect and operation of order dated 10.5.13 passed by the District Collector may be stayed and the status quo may be maintained in respect of the disputed land in the revenue record and at the site. The RAA while issuing notice to the respondents, passed an interim order, as prayed for. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the RAA, the respondent no.1 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue under Section 84 read with Section 9 of the Act of 1956. The Board found that against the interlocutory order passed by the RAA, the revision petition is not maintainable. However, the Board observed that the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was barred by limitation and therefore, the RAA should have decided the issue of limitation first, before passing the interim order on the stay petition preferred on behalf of the petitioners. The revision petition was disposed of by the Board of Revenue exercising the power under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 in terms that RAA shall decide the stay petition within a period of one month after hearing both the parties, however, at the same time, the operation of the order dated 17.9.13 passed by the RAA has been stayed. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board of Revenue having arrived at the conclusion that the revision petition is not maintainable against the interlocutory order, there was no occasion for passing an order staying the order passed by the RAA invoking the power under Section 9 of the Act of 1956. Learned counsel submitted that on 17.9.13, the stay was granted by the RAA in favour of the petitioner only till the next date 3.10.13. On 3.10.13, the stay was extended till the next date of hearing i.e. 24.10.13. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for 28.10.13 and on that date, the reply was submitted on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned thrice i.e. 1.11.13, 21.11.13 and 5.12.13. Learned counsel submitted that in these circumstances there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to interfere with the order passed by the RAA by passing the order in the terms indicated above. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned thrice i.e. 1.11.13, 21.11.13 and 5.12.13. Learned counsel submitted that in these circumstances there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to interfere with the order passed by the RAA by passing the order in the terms indicated above. Learned counsel submitted that indisputably, the land comprising khasra no.58/92 stands transferred in favour of the petitioner, which is clearly shown in the Naksha Trace placed on record as Annexure 5 & 7. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the protection extended by the RAA pending consideration of the stay petition was not required to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue invoking the power under Section 9 of the Act of 1956. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 & 2 submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioners was barred by limitation and therefore, the stay petition preferred by the petitioners could not have been entertained by the RAA unless and until the appeal was treated to be in limitation or the delay in filing the appeal is condoned while disposing of the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue having power of general superintendence over subordinate revenue courts was well within its jurisdiction in interfering with the interlocutory order passed by the RAA. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has already issued directions for disposal of the stay petition within a period of one month and therefore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner on account of the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, out of the land measuring 5.12 hectares comprising khasra no.58, 1 hectare land was gifted by the khatedar tenant Sampat Raj in favour of the petitioners in the year 1991. The land transferred in favour of the petitioner stands converted for residential use vide order dated 10.12.13 passed by the Authorised Officer. It is also not in dispute that the land transferred in favour of the petitioner was allotted khasra no.58/92. The land transferred in favour of the petitioner stands converted for residential use vide order dated 10.12.13 passed by the Authorised Officer. It is also not in dispute that the land transferred in favour of the petitioner was allotted khasra no.58/92. As per the Naksha Trace placed on record as Annexure-7, the location of the petitioners' land comprising khasra no.58/92 has been distinctly shown in the red ink. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there appears to be a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the RAA pending disposal of the stay petition was not required to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue by invoking power under Section 9 of the Act moreso, when the revision petition preferred by the respondents was found to be not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that the stay order was granted by the RAA vide order dated 17.9.13 only till the next date i.e. 3.10.13 and therefore, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of interlocutory order dated 17.9.13 passed by the RAA was not required to be entertained by the Board of Revenue. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. If on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue considered it appropriate to exercise the power under Section 9 of the Act then, the unequivocal facts on record showing the prima facie case of the petitioners in respect of 1 hectare land comprising khasra no.58/92 distinctly shown in the Naksha Trace could not have been ignored by the Board of Revenue. At least while interfering with the interim order passed by the RAA for the sake of justice, it would have been appropriate for the Board to issue appropriate directions to maintain the status quo in respect of the land comprising khasra no.58/92. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, while maintaining the order passed by the Board of Revenue directing the disposal of the stay petition within the stipulated period, this court considered it appropriate to direct that the status quo shall be maintained in respect of the disputed land ad measuring 1 hectare comprising khasra no.58/92 as shown in the Naksha Trace (Annexure-7) till the disposal of the stay petition by the RAA, Pali. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the terms indicated above. The order passed by the Board of Revenue shall stand modified accordingly. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Disposed of. *******