Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 24 (RAJ)

Kamla Devi v. Sunder Devi

2016-01-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on 16.11.2015 aggrieved against order dated 10.04.2014 (Annexure-8) passed by the Board of Revenue and has sought setting aside of the order to the extent the Board of Revenue has accepted the application of respondent No. 4 under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC without impleading petitioners as party and without providing opportunity of hearing; further relief has been sought for setting aside of the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by Tehsildar, Jodhpur whereby, the name of respondent No. 4 has been ordered to be mutated qua the land in question. 2. The petitioners, who are legal representatives of late Mohan Ram have sought the above quoted relief essentially raising grievance regarding the application filed by respondent No.4 Asha Ram during the pendency of revision petition No. 3350/2013 before the Board of Revenue, wherein, the revision petition was filed by Mohan Ram along with five others. The said Mohan Ram died during the pendency of the revision petition and an application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC was filed by respondent No.4 Asha Ram on the strength of a Will dated 24.05.2011 said to have been executed by Mohan Ram in his favour. The application was accepted by the Board of Revenue and Asha Ram was impleaded as party petitioner No.4/1 in the revision petition, where after the revision petition was heard on merits and the same was allowed and the order dated 05.08.2000 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur was set aside and the original mutation dated 24.11.1995 was restored. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were neither issued notice nor were heard before passing of the order on application filed by respondent No.4 under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, which was filed based on the Will and the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity to contest the said Will and to get impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Mohan Ram, who was petitioners' husband/father and, therefore, the order dated 10.04.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside in this regard. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 5. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties before the Board of Revenue and did not file any application for being impleaded as legal representatives in the pending revision petition, wherein, Mohan Ram was a party and it was respondent No.4 Asha Ram alone, who on the strength of a Will filed application for impeadment. 6. The application was not opposed by any of the parties and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 10.04.2014 while deciding the revision petition itself, ordered for taking the respondent No.4 on record as legal representatives of deceased Mohan Ram. 7. In case the petitioners were aggrieved against impleadment of Asha Ram alone as legal representative of deceased Mohan Ram, it was incumbent on the petitioners to approach the Board of Revenue by way of appropriate proceedings bringing to its notice the petitioners' claim and questioning the status of respondent No.4, however, without adopting the said procedure the petitioners have directly approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 8. The present proceedings without approaching the Board of Revenue in this regard by way of appropriate proceedings including a review petition, are apparently not maintainable. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by way of original proceedings so as to get the issue of legal representation of deceased Mohan Ram determined, without first approaching the forum wherein the order Order 22, Rule 3 CPC has been passed impleading respondent No.4 as legal representative of deceased Mohan Ram. 9. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioners would be free to take appropriate proceedings in relation to the order dated 10.04.2014, to the extent aggrieved.