Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1374 (RAJ)

Sukh Ram v. Board of Revenue

2015-07-22

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 22.3.12 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby while accepting the reference made by the Additional District Collector, Nagaur in respect of the land measuring 12 bighas comprising sabik khasra no.73 situated at village-Sarasani, the land is directed to be recorded in the revenue record as gair mumkin angore. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after registering the reference, notices were directed to be issued by the Board of Revenue to inter alia the petitioner herein. It is submitted that on 29.7.11 it was recorded in the order sheet that nobody is present on behalf of the respondent no.3 despite service and regarding respondent no.4, it was recorded that he has refused to accept the notice. On the next date i.e. 13.2.12, the matter was adjourned to 17.9.12. In the meantime, an application was preferred on behalf of the State for early hearing of the matter. The application was allowed vide order dated 14.3.12, the final arguments were heard and the order was reserved and later, on 22.3.12 the judgment was pronounced. Learned counsel submitted that the next date in the matter having been fixed as 17.9.12 there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear before the Board of Revenue before the said date. It is submitted that the petitioner was never served with the copy of the application seeking preponement of the date of hearing nor the notice was given to the petitioner regarding date of hearing of the matter being preponed. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned affecting the rights of the petitioner adversely has been passed by the Board of Revenue without extending an opportunity of hearing to him and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submitted that from the perusal of the order sheets it is apparent that no notice regarding the preponement of the date of hearing was given to the petitioner. However, it is submitted that in view of the Bench decision of this court, the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and per-sued the material on record. 5. Indisputably, on 13.2.12 the next date of hearing in the matter was fixed as 17.9.12. However, it is submitted that in view of the Bench decision of this court, the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and per-sued the material on record. 5. Indisputably, on 13.2.12 the next date of hearing in the matter was fixed as 17.9.12. There is nothing on record to suggest that the copy of the application preferred for early hearing of the matter was served upon the petitioner or he was put to notice regarding the preponement of the date of hearing. Obviously, the petitioner was not required to appear before the Board of Revenue prior to 17.3.12 and thus, the order passed by the Board of Revenue preponing the date of hearing without putting the petitioner to the notice is ex facie unjustified. It is not in dispute that order impugned has been passed by the Board of Revenue without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside on this count alone. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.3.12 passed by the Board of Revenue in Reference/LR/3533/2009/Nagaur is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue for decision afresh after hearing parties to the proceedings. The parties shall appear before the Board of Revenue on 1.9.15. The Board of Revenue is directed to decide the reference expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.