Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1266 (RAJ)

Mahavir Prasad v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan

2017-05-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue (‘the Board’) wherein the Board while exercising power of review, has recalled/set aside the order dated 11.01.2017. The respondents filed petition under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The petition was accepted by the SDO. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (‘the RAA’) which appeal was rejected. Whereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Board. The Board by its order dated 11.01.2017, sought production of a Commissioner report dated 13.04.2015 and also directed that if the said report dated 13.04.2015 was not available, again a fresh report be got prepared in presence of both the parties and produced before the Board. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 filed review petition before the Board. The Board after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the order dated 11.01.2017, wherein the order was passed for seeking a fresh report was required to be set aside and set aside the said order. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board was not justified in reviewing its order as the earlier order passed was reasoned and parameters as laid down under the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 and 2 CPC for reviewing the order were not fulfilled in the present case and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. It was further submitted that the Revisional Court has power to call for a factual report and, therefore, the order did not call for any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. During pendency of the revision petition, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, claiming that a report dated 13.04.2015 in presence of both the parties was prepared by the SDO, which was not relied on and instead a report dated 28.07.2015, which was not prepared in the presence of the petitioner was made the basis for passing of the impugned order. 7. 7. The Board while deciding the said application besides calling for the said report dated 13.04.2015 also ordered that if the said report was not available, a fresh report be obtained and be sent to the Board. 8. The respondent No. 2 filed review petition, inter-alia, indicating that the order seeking a fresh report could not have been passed, inasmuch as, the entire plea regarding the availability of the report dated 13.04.2015 itself was baseless. The Board after hearing the parties as noticed hereinbefore, allowed the review petition. 9. The very fact that the same member of the Board of Revenue, who had passed the order dated 11.01.2017, has reviewed his order based on the material, which was available before him, is a reason enough not to interfere with the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as, the said member was well aware of the submissions made before him and the scope of the application, which was decided by him while deciding application under Section 151 CPC on 11.01.2017. 10. Besides the above, if the submissions made pertained to existence of a report, except for calling for the said report without examining further matter on merits, the order for fresh report could not have been passed and in that circumstances also, the order of review does not call for any interference. Further, it may be observed that after hearing the parties, still if the Board of Revenue feels that a fresh report needs to be called, the Board of Revenue would be free to pass an appropriate order. 11. In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.