Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1505 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. Gangoo s/o late Mahadev (deceased)

2016-10-17

ALOK SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Alok Sharma, J. 1. The respondent No. 11 M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited filed a suit for partition under Sections 53 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1955’) on 31-12-2015 in respect of its purported ? share in khasra No. 834 admeasuring 3.07 hectare village Mawda Tehsil Amer District Jaipur. Impleaded therein were the defendants respondents No. 1 to 9 as also the four petitioners who have laid this petition. An application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 read with Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC was also filed. The matter coming upon before the Assistant Collector Amer on 1-1-2016 an ex-parte interim order was passed, while issuing notice to the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the purported possession of the plaintiff M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited to the extent of their share. Liberty was also granted to the defendants to seek vacation of ex-parte interim order. However even before notices on the suit for partition as also the application for temporary injunction could be served on defendants including the petitioners herein, another application also came to be filed under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 on or about 6-1-2016 seeking appointment of receiver on the land in dispute on the allegation that the ex-parte interim order was being defied by the defendants. On the same day i.e. on 6-1-2016 itself, the Assistant Collector Amer passed another ex-parte order this time appointing a receiver on the land in dispute. The Naib Tehsildar Rampura Dabdi, Tehsil Amer was directed to take possession of disputed land in khasra No. 834 admeasuring 3.07 hectare. Pursuant thereto the Naib Tehsildar, as receiver, took possession of the land (and crops thereon) in khasra No. 834 on 14-1-2016. Surprised and aggrieved of the shocking and reckless ex-parte interim order dated 6-1-2016 and resultant dispossession, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur on 20-1-2016, who only called for the record of the trial court without any substantive relief for the appellants before him. The petitioners rushed to the Board of Revenue by way of a revision petition on 10-2-2016, but again to no avail. Hence this petition. 2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice is fundamental to all legal adjudication. The petitioners rushed to the Board of Revenue by way of a revision petition on 10-2-2016, but again to no avail. Hence this petition. 2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice is fundamental to all legal adjudication. Administration of justice does not countenance ex-parte orders of dispossession of one claiming to be in settled possession on the basis of a legal title, as in the instant case, claimed by the petitioners in view of their father Saddaram having purchased the suit land vide registered sale-deed dated 16-1-1960 from one Rawat Surendra Singh. Whatever be the merits of the petitioners’ case with regard to their lawful possession as claimed in khasra No. 834 and whether or not it relates to the sale deed dated 16-1-1960 executed by Rawat Surendra Singh in favour of the petitioners’ father Saddaram, the petitioners could not have been perfunctorily dispossessed from the land through the ex-parte appointment of a receiver. Shockingly in a frightening display of judicial power, a receiver was appointed on the day of the filing of the application for the purpose. That is not the "efficiency" ordinarily on display in any court more so a revenue court. The defendants were not given any reasonable opportunity of stating their defence and being heard. Merits of the case of the parties before the Assistant Collector Amer had to be considered in a regular trial after due service, on the basis of evidences of parties in the suit for partition filed by the respondent-plaintiff M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited. 3. In the context of the aforesaid facts, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Ravi Bhojak on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the order dated 6-1-2016 as also all events consequent thereto be set aside. The fairness of Mr. A.K. Sharma is commendable. But even otherwise in view of palpable arbitrariness resulting from a shocking misuse of judicial power by the Assistant Collector Amer in contravention of principles of natural justice, the ex-parte order dated 6-1-2016 was liable to be set aside and status quo ante directed to be restored. 4. Consequently, the order dated 6-1-2016 passed by the Assistant Collector Amer is quashed and set aside. It is further directed that irrespective of any action being taken on the basis of the order dated 6-1-2016 passed by the Assistant Collector Amer, status quo ante as of 6-1-2016 be restored. 4. Consequently, the order dated 6-1-2016 passed by the Assistant Collector Amer is quashed and set aside. It is further directed that irrespective of any action being taken on the basis of the order dated 6-1-2016 passed by the Assistant Collector Amer, status quo ante as of 6-1-2016 be restored. It is further directed that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited be transferred from the court of the Assistant Collector Amer to another court of equal jurisdiction within District Jaipur. 5. That however is not the end of the matter. The conduct of the Assistant Collector Amer and the misuse of judicial power to the benefit of the respondent No. 11-plaintiff M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited cannot be left unaddressed. It is no doubt true that the Assistant Collector hearing a suit under the provisions of the Act of 1955 exercises judicial powers. But that fact alone cannot act as a complete shield from disciplinary action-no matter how shocking the attendant circumstances. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Duli chand [ (2006)5 SCC 680 ], where a Three Judge Bench has held that disciplinary action can be taken against an officer discharging judicial function where there is an element of culpability involved. The Apex Court in coming to the said conclusion relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan [ (1993)2 SCC 56 ], wherein it was held that in the event an officer exercising quasi judicial power acts negligently and recklessly, he could be proceeded against by way of disciplinary action. Six instances were illustratively noted as set out in the case of Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan (supra) which inter alia included situations where an officer exercising quasi judicial power had prima facie acted recklessly in discharging his duty in a manner unbecoming of a government servant omitting the prescribed conditions essential for exercise of statutory power, or where it was apparent that the order passed was unduly to favour of a party. Similarly in the case of Union of India v. Ajoy Kumar Patnaik [ (1995)6 SCC 442 ] the Apex Court has held that where an officer though performing quasi judicial function shows in the discharge of such function a conduct which casts a reflection on his integrity or raises questions as to his devotion to public duty, his conduct as a public servant in the discharge of such duty would be amenable to disciplinary proceedings. 6. I am of the considered view that the egregiously shocking nature of exercise of judicial power by the Assistant Collector Amer in appointing a receiver by an ex-parte order and entailing the dispossession of the petitioners-defendants impinges upon the very credibility of judicial processes of the revenue courts in the State of Rajasthan. The functioning of the revenue courts in the State of Rajasthan is universally known to all engaged in administration of justice and instances as the one at hand in the passing impugned ex parte order dated 6-1-2016 appointing a receiver only buttress the negative public perception in that regard while encouraging the wrong kind of elements confident in “securing it”. It cannot escape the notice of this court that the underlying suit for partition is at the instance not of an agriculturist but that of a developer. I am of the considered view that for the uplifting of the faith of the litigating public in revenue courts, this is a matter serious enough to direct the Principal Secretary Revenue Government of Rajasthan to initiate an enquiry into the matter of passing ex-parte interim order dated 6-1-2016 appointing a receiver on the very day of filing of the application by respondent M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited. It is expected that thereafter the concerned Assistant Collector Amer will be through a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958. It is directed that the requisite enquiry/departmental enquiry be completed within a period of ten months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the Chairman, Board of Revenue Ajmer. And in the event of a finding of guilt of misconduct suitable, adequate penalty be visited upon the concerned officer. The conclusions in the departmental enquiry be placed on the record of this court. 7. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. And in the event of a finding of guilt of misconduct suitable, adequate penalty be visited upon the concerned officer. The conclusions in the departmental enquiry be placed on the record of this court. 7. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG for onward transmission and compliance of the order. 8. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with a cost of Rs.2 lacs to be paid by the respondent No. 11-plaintiff M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited, the obvious beneficiary of the order dated 6-1-2016 which now stands set aside. Rs.1 lac be paid to the petitioners and remaining Rs.1 lacs be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Jaipur within ninety days from the date of this order. 9. Let the matter be put up before this court on August 21, 2017 for compliance. Writ Petition allowed with costs of Rs. 32 lakhs out of which 1 lakh to be paid to petitioner and rest to legal service Authority.