Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1485 (RAJ)

Ramchandra v. Shyonarayan Adopted Son Shyochandra

2018-07-13

K.S.JHAVERI, VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common order. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-appellant herein and confirmed the order of the Board of Revenue which has reversed the finding arrived at by Additional Divisional Commissioner. 3. The case has a chequered history in a way that initially land in dispute was mutated in the name of the non-petitioner-Shyonarayan based on an affidavit showing him to be adopted son of Shyochanda. The petitioners maintained an appeal to challenge the mutation. The appeal was supported by an application for condonation of delay. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal in favour of the petitioners without passing an order on the application for condonation of delay. The Additional Collector-II had remanded the case to the Tehsildar for passing a fresh order after hearing both the parties. The non-petitioner herein challenged the order of Additional Collector-II by maintaining an appeal and thereupon revision petition before the Board of Revenue. While, the revision petition was pending, the Tehsildar passed an order in favour of the petitioners in view of remand of the case by the Additional Collector-II. The non-petitioner challenged the order of Tehsildar by maintaining an appeal, however, it was dismissed. The non-petitioner then challenged the order by maintaining second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue clubbed the revision petition and the second appeal and decided it by a common order. It was found that no order on the application for condonation of delay was passed by the Additional Collector-II thus matter needs to be remanded back to the Additional Collector-II to hear and pass a fresh order. In view of that, all the orders passed after remand of the case by the Additional Collector-II were also set aside. 4. It was found that no order on the application for condonation of delay was passed by the Additional Collector-II thus matter needs to be remanded back to the Additional Collector-II to hear and pass a fresh order. In view of that, all the orders passed after remand of the case by the Additional Collector-II were also set aside. 4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of the first appellate authority wherein it has been observed as under:- odhy odhy jsLiksUMsUV dk dFku gS fd mDr vihy fe;kn ckgj gS vkSj fe;kn ds vk/kkj ij vihy dks [kkfjt dj fn;k tkosA mUgksaus /;ku fnyk;k fd vihykUV }kjk /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e izkFkZuk i= ds en uacj 3 dh vksj fnyk;k ftlesa vihykaV~l ds vkns'k fnukad 11-5-93 dh tkudkjh fn- 14-5-93 dks gksuk vafdr fd;k gS tcfd vihy fnukad 17-9-94 dks ;kuh 1 o"kZ 6 ekg i'pkr is'k dh x;h gSA mUgksaus 'kiFk i= dY;k.k ftlesa dY;k.k us lksgu ukjk;.k dks ';kspUnk iq= pUnk ds xksn vkuk crk;kA jktLo fjdkMZ esa bldk uksV yxk gqvk gS nksuksa i{kksa ds chp jktLo eqdnek U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS tgka ls i{kdkjku ds vf/kdkj r; gksaxsA bl leFkZu esa vkjvkjMh 1992 ist 360] 1990 ist 173] 1985 vkjvkjMh ist 170 ,oa vkjvkjMh 1995 ist 120 is'k fd;kA 5. He has contended that first authority while condoning the delay has considered the delay condonation application on merits. 6. He has contended that first authority while condoning the delay has considered the delay condonation application on merits. 6. Even Additional Divisional Commissioner while considering the application for delay condonation application on merits held as under: geus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdksa dh cgl lquh ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fjdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;kA izLrqr vihy esa vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj us fnukad 22-1-2001 dks vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 708 dks fujLr dj izdj.k rglhynkj Qkxh dks mHk; i{k dks lqudj fu.kZ; gsrq fjek.M fd;k Fkk ftlesa fo}ku odhy vihykFkhZ dk dFku jgk gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy fe;kn ckgj izLrqr dh x;h Fkh ,oa bUgksaus tkudkjh fnukad 14-5-1993 dks gksuk vafdr fd;k gSA bl izdkj 1 o"kZ 6 ekg i'pkr fe;kn ckgj vihy is'k gksus ls [kkfjt dh tkuh pkfg, FkhaA odhy vihykFkhZ dk dFku Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gS D;ksafd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa vihykFkhZ us tks vkosnu i= is'k fd;k gS mlesa tks vuqrks"k pkgk gS mlesa tkudkjh fnukad 15-9-94 gksus dk mYys[k fd;k gS bl vkosnu i= ds leFkZu esa tks 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gS mlesa Hkh fnukad 15-9-94 dks tkudkjh gksus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA vihy esa Hkh blh frfFk dh tkudkjh dk mYys[k gS dsoy ek= vkosnu esa fnukad 14-5-94 dh frfFk dk vadu djuk Vad.k =qfV Hkh gks ldrh gSA blds vykok vij dyDVj us izR;{k :i ls fe;kn ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ mYys[k rks ugha fd;k ijUrq vizR;{k :i ls vihy dks fe;kn esa ekurs gq;s gh xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; fn;k gSA ekuuh; jktLo e.My ds vkns'k fnukad 22-6-99 ls Hkh ;gh ea'kk jgh gS fd vihy dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; fd;k tkosA ;gka ;g rF; Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 22-1-2001 dks fu.kZ; fnukad 12-7-2001 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr dj fn;k gSA vr% vc ;g vihy lkjghu gks xbZ gS vc bl ds fcUnq ij dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; gh ugha jg tkrk gSA mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihy vihykFkhZ vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj dk vkns'k fnukad 22-1-2001 ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA 7. However, the Board of Revenue while considering the matter has observed as under:- 8- mijksDr fuxjkuh ;kfpdk ds fuLrkj.k gsrq eSaus nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl ij euu fd;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k ,oa izLrqr fd;s x;s lEekfur U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk vknjiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA rRi'pkr~ esjk fu"d"kZ fuEu izdkj ls gSA 9- bl ekeys esa vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj ds }kjk fnukad 22-1-2001 dks vihy la[;k 259@99 dk fuLrkj.k fd;k x;k ,oa ;g vkns'k fn;k x;k fd ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 708 xzke MhMok.kk fnukad 11-5-93 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ekeyk iqu% rglhynkj Qkxh dks fjek.M fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj U;k;laxr fof/kor iqu% Qslyk djsA mijksDr vihy la[;k 259@99 cmuoku jkepUnz cuke ';ksukjk;.k esa U;k;ky; vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj ds le{k ';ksukjk;.k dh rjQ ls ;g rdZ Hkh fn;k x;k Fkk fd vihy fe;kn ckgj gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij gh vihy dks [kkfjt dj fn;k tkosA fdUrq vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj ds }kjk bl fe;kn ds fcUnq ds laca/k esa dksbZ foospu ugha fd;k x;k vkSj fu.kZ; fnukad 22-1-2001 ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA blds i'pkr mijksDr fu.kZ; fnukad 22-1-2001 dh tks vihy la[;k 8@2001 vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds le{k is'k dh xbZ ftldk fu.kZ; fnukad 27-12-2001 dks fd;k x;kA bl fu.kZ; esa fe;kn ds fcUnq ds laca/k esa vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj us ;g ekuk fd vkosnu esa fnukad 14-5-93 dh frfFk dk vadu djuk Vad.k =qfV Hkh gks ldrh gS ,oa vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj us izR;{k :i ls fe;kn ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ mYys[k rks ugha fd;k ijUrq vizR;{k :i ls vihy dks fe;kn esa ekurs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; fn;k gSA vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds }kjk fnukad 27-12-2001 dks tks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gSa] mldk voyksdu djus ls Hkh Li"V :i ls ;g izdV ugha gksrk vk;k fd fnukad 11-5-93 ds ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 708] ftlds fd laca/k esa fnukad 17-9-94 dks ;kfu yxHkx 1 o"kZ 6 ekg i'pkr vihy is'k dh xbZ gS vkSj ml vihy esa tks foyEc gqvk gS ftlesa vihykaV jkepUnz i{k dks tkudkjh dh fnukad 14-5-93 ekuh tk;s ;k 14-9-94 ekuh tk;s] bl laca/k esa dksbZ Li"V fLFkfr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds }kjk lkeus ugha yk;h x;h gSA vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr ds vkns'k esa d;kl ds vk/kkj ij dsoy ;g mYysf[kr dj nsuk fd 14-5-93 dh frfFk dk vadu djuk Vad.k =qfV Hkh gks ldrh gS] ;g ek= mudk ,d d;kl gSA ;g fdl vk/kkj ij gS] bldk dksbZ foospu fu.kZ; esa ugha gSA 8. Taking into consideration the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding arrived at by the Board of Revenue with regard to the delay condonation application was erroneous and learned Single Judge dealing with the matter has wrongly recorded the facts. 9. We have gone through the order of all the three authorities. 10. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Board of Revenue and reasoning adopted by the first authority where considering the delay of 1 year and 6 months, no finding has been recorded for delay condonation, we are of the considered opinion that no explanation for delay was given yet the authorities below condoned the delay, therefore, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and Board of Revenue. 11. 11. In SAW No.271/2018, the Board of Revenue has rightly recorded the finding in para no.9 regarding delay condonation which reads as under:- 9- mijksDr f}rh; vihy esa vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds }kjk fnukad 27-12-2001 dks tks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gS mls pqukSrh nh xbZ gSA vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds U;k;ky; esa vihy la[;k 46@01 vihykaV ';ksukjk;.k ds }kjk is'k dh xbZ FkhA ;g vihy rglhynkj Qkxh ftyk t;iqj ds vkns'k fnukad 12-7-2001 ls vlarq"V gksdj is'k dh xbZ FkhA rglhynkj Qkxh ftyk t;iqj ds }kjk tks fnukad 12-7-2001 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] og fu.kZ; vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj ds }kjk ifjr fu.kZ; fnukad 22-1-2001 ds vuqlj.k esa ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ foospu djus ls iwoZ esjk ;g ekuuk gS fd vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj ds }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 22-1-2001] tks fd mUgksaus vihy la[;k 259@99 esa ikfjr fd;k Fkk vkSj ftl fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj mUgksaus ekeys dks iqu% rglhynkj Qkxh dks fjek.M fd;k Fkk] ds vuqlj.k esa rglhynkj Qkxh ftyk t;iqj ds }kjk fnukad 12-7-2001 dks ;g fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA esjk ;g ekuuk gS fd jktLo e.My vtesj ds le{k vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj ds }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 22-1-2001] ftldh dh vihy U;k;ky; vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds ;gka vihy la[;k 8@2001 is'k dh xbZ Fkh] ftlesa vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj us fnukad 27-12-2001 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k Fkk] ds fo:) jktLo e.My ds le{k fuxjkuh ;kfpdk la[;k 473@02 cmuokuh ';ksukjk;.k cuke jkepUnz oxSjg is'k dh xbZ Fkh] tks vkt gh bl ,dy ihB ds }kjk lquh tkdj fuf.kZr dh tk jgh gS vkSj mijksDr fuxjkuh ;kfpdk la[;k 473@02 esa fd;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj dk fu.kZ; fnukad 27-12-2001 ,oa vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj dk fu.kZ; fnukad 22-1-2001 vikLr fd;k tkdj ekeys dks iqu% lquokbZ gsrq vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj ds ;gka izfriszf'kr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s x;s gSA pwafd fuxjkuh ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqlkj vij dyDVj ¼f}rh;½ t;iqj dk fu.kZ; fnukad 22-1-2001 vikLr fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj izdj.k izfrizsf"kr dj iqu% lquokbZ dj fof/k vuqlkj u;s fljs ls vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k gS rFkk rglhynkj Qkxh ftyk t;iqj ds }kjk fu.kZ; fnukad 12-7-2001 ds vuqlj.k esa gh ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa esjk ;g ekuuk gS fd pwafd ewy vkns'k] ftlds fd vuqlj.k esa U;k;ky; rglhynkj Qkxh ftyk t;iqj ds }kjk fnukad 12-7-2001 dks tks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] og vikLr fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj mlesa iqu% lquokbZ ds funZs'k fn;s x;s gSa rks bl fLFkfr esa mijksDr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; fnukad 27-12-2001] tks fd vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds }kjk rFkk fu.kZ; fnukad 12-7-2001 tks fd rglhynkj Qkxh ds U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] dks Hkh vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA 12. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. 13. The appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.