Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 507 (RAJ)

Rawat Singh v. Shaitan Singh

2017-02-13

M.N.BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT M.N. Bhandari, J. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 16th November, 2015 passed by the Board of Revenue on an application under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"). 2. It is a case where a suit was preferred by the petitioner under Section 88 of the Act of 1955. A preliminary decree was drawn in his favour. The non-petitioners challenged the decree before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The petitioner maintained an application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 apprehending sale of the land in the hands of the non-petitioners during pendency of the appeal. The application aforesaid was allowed by the ACM vide its order date 01st August, 2013. The non-petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order. The appeal was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority without giving notice to the petitioner thus order aforesaid was passed in violation of procedure provided for hearing the appeal as well as the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by maintaining a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue found that the Revenue Appellate Authority has passed the order dated 09th September, 2014 without hearing the petitioner thus order dated 09th September, 2014 was modified with a direction on the respondents not to alienate the property. The order aforesaid was passed to save the parties to unnecessary litigate on the application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 when preliminary decree exists in favour of the petitioner. The nonpetitioners preferred a review petition against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 23rd April, 2015. The non-petitioners then preferred an application under Section 221 of the Act of 1955. Section 221 of the Act of 1955 is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "221. The nonpetitioners preferred a review petition against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 23rd April, 2015. The non-petitioners then preferred an application under Section 221 of the Act of 1955. Section 221 of the Act of 1955 is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "221. Subordination of revenue courts.- The general superintendence and control over all revenue courts shall be vested in, and all such courts shall be subordinate to the Board; and subject to such superintendence, control and subordination-- [xxx] (b) all Additional Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars in a tehsil shall be subordinate to the Tehsildar thereof." (c) all Assistant Collectors, Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars in a sub-division shall be subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer thereof, and (d) all Additional Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars in a tehsil shall be subordinate to the Tehsildar thereof." 4. Section 221 of the Act of 1955 applies for general superintendence and control over all revenue courts subordinate to the Board of Revenue. The aforesaid provision was not available once revision petition was allowed followed by dismissal of review petition by the Board of Revenue, yet it set aside the order passed by the ACM Court on 01st August, 2013 and, thereby, gave room to the non-petitioners to sale the property despite preliminary enquiry. 5. The way, jurisdiction has been exercised by the Board of Revenue on the application under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 needs to be condemned. It is even for the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 6. Once, the revision petition was allowed followed by dismissal of review petition by the Board of Revenue, the application under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 was not even maintainable. The order dated 01st August, 2013 passed by the ACM Court merged in the order passed by the Board of Revenue while allowing revision petition. The operative portion of the order passed by the Board of Revenue is quoted hereunder for ready reference : 7. The order dated 01st August, 2013 merged in the subsequent order dated 09th September, 2014 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and it was modified by the Board of Revenue, hence, jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 was not even available with the Board of Revenue. In view of above, the order dated 16th November, 2015 is set aside. 8. In view of above, the order dated 16th November, 2015 is set aside. 8. Before parting with the judgment, the practice adopted by the Revenue Appellate Authority to pass the order without calling the other party needs to be deprecated so as the order passed by the Board of Revenue on the application under Section 221 of the Act of 1955, having no jurisdiction for it. 9. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer for information and action in the matter either at his level or at the level of competent authority.