Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 96 (RAJ)

Kalawati v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to protect the petitioner's possession of the land in dispute and restrain Respondents No. 5 and 6 from causing obstruction. Further relief has been sought that the Board of Revenue may be directed to hear and decide the Revision Petition filed by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 expeditiously. 2. The Respondents No. 5 and 6 filed a suit against the petitioner and along with the suit, an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act’) was filed. The S.D.O. by the Order dated 29.9.2015 rejected the application filed by the respondents No. 5 and 6. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondents No. 5 and 6 filed an Appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh ('R.A.A.'). Along with the appeal, an application seeking interim stay was filed, which application came to be rejected by the R.A.A. on 1.10.2015. 4. It is submitted that despite rejection of applications by the S.D.O. and the R.A.A., Respondents No. 5 and 6 were seeking to interfere in the petitioner's possession and were not following the rule of law. It is submitted that further to the dismissal of the ad interim application filed along with the appeal by the R.A.A. on 1.10.2015, the Respondents No. 5 and 6 have filed Revision Petition before Board of Revenue ('B.O.R.') and the B.O.R. may be directed to decide the said Revision expeditiously. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, as the proceedings qua the land in dispute are already pending before jurisdictional Court, no case for passing any order regarding the land/possession/interference/obstruction by this Court is made out in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is therefore, free to approach the jurisdictional Court in this regard. 6. However, the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding expeditious disposal of the revision filed by the respondents before the B.O.R. appears to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 7. The petitioner is therefore, free to approach the jurisdictional Court in this regard. 6. However, the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding expeditious disposal of the revision filed by the respondents before the B.O.R. appears to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 7. In view thereof, it is directed that the B.O.R. shall decide the revision filed by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the B.O.R., after prior notice to Respondents No. 5 and 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.