Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1260 (RAJ)

Mohammad Islam v. Abdul Wajid

2018-05-11

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Board of Revenue whereby it has set-aside the interim order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, directing to maintain status-quo of the property and with prayer to the State Government not to release the compensation for the land being acquired of the said property. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to have interfered with an interim order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as the respondents had not even put in appearance before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Counsel submits that they had to prefer an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the inaction of the SDO in not passing any order on the application seeking injunction and granting dates to the caveator to file reply. It is his submission that if the compensation is released by the State in favour of the respondents, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss. 3. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the Board of Revenue have just corrected the procedure. The Revenue Appellate Authority did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as there was no order passed by the SDO and the SDO was still ceased with the matter and if any order was required to be passed the same was to be heard only by original court i.e. the SDO. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be faulted. 4. Having heard both the counsels, I find that while the SDO was ceased with the matter, the respondents had put in appearance as caveators. From the order sheet, it is apparent that the SDO has not passed any order on the stay application moved by the petitioner and even after 14.03.2017, he has granted dates to the respondents on application moved by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 as it is evident from the order sheet which is placed on record before this Court. 5. However, in view of the provisions of the Section 225 the appeal would not lie before Revenue Appellate Authority, unless there is an order passed by the SDO, and therefore, it would have been appropriate for the Revenue Appellate Authority to direct that the SDO to hear the petitioner on stay application and decide the same. 5. However, in view of the provisions of the Section 225 the appeal would not lie before Revenue Appellate Authority, unless there is an order passed by the SDO, and therefore, it would have been appropriate for the Revenue Appellate Authority to direct that the SDO to hear the petitioner on stay application and decide the same. To that extent the order of Board of Revenue cannot be faulted. The SDO is directed to decide the stay petition within 10 days henceforth. 6. Taking into consideration that the issues involved, it would be appropriate to maintain status-quo till then. So far as thequestion relating to the release of compensation amount is concerned, the petitioner can always address the Land Acquisition Officer/competent authority to decide whether the amount is to be released or not. 7. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.