Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2435 (RAJ)

Motilal Mahajan v. Sanju Sharma

2019-09-11

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 9.7.2019 whereby the application for seeking transfer of appeal pending before Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority Alwar to any other RAA has been rejected. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had moved an application to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but same has not been decided by the learned RAA. Learned Counsel submits that a. separate application was also moved in this respect for non-maintainability of the appeal but the same has also not been decided. Learned Counsel submits that the concerned RAA is bent upon to hear and decide the appeal itself and reference to Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC to submit that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to be decided. Learned Counsel relies on judgment passed by Supreme Court in Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Mechano & Anr., 2002 (1) SCC 475 whereby the Supreme Court has directed to decide application for condoning the delay first before deciding the appeal. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that he had rightly moved an application for transfer of the case as the concerned RAA, Alwar was not following the law. 3. I have considered the submissions. 4. The application for seeking transfer of a case from one judicial authority on the basis as above would be wholly not maintainable. No party should be allowed to brow-beat the judicial authorities. The provisions as laid down in CPC although are not strictly applicable with regard to revenue authorities; it is informed that a Revenue authorities try their level best to follow the CPC while deciding revenue suits and appeals. Be that as it may, once an application under Section 5 is pending before the concerned RAA, it cannot be presumed that he would not decide the appeal or consider it while deciding the appeal itself. Thus, on such grounds, filing of transfer petition was wholly unwarranted and the Board of Revenue has, therefore, rightly rejected such a transfer application. 5. Learned Counsel faced with such a situation prays this Court that concerned RAA be directed to first decide the application under Section 5 filed by the respondents. 6. Thus, on such grounds, filing of transfer petition was wholly unwarranted and the Board of Revenue has, therefore, rightly rejected such a transfer application. 5. Learned Counsel faced with such a situation prays this Court that concerned RAA be directed to first decide the application under Section 5 filed by the respondents. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, such directions for day-to-day control on the proceedings of the revenue authorities is not called for and the writ petition making such prayers is found to be wholly frivolous. Taking into consideration the manner and conduct of the petitioner in filing the present petition merely because the application under Section 5 is pending amounts to over-reaching the process of the Court. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jaipur.