Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2700 (RAJ)

Mandir Murti Shri Sitaramji v. Ramratan

2019-10-17

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
ORDER 1. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26th April, 2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a decree in his favour, which was passed by the competent court, i.e., the Assistant Collector, Hindaun, District Karauli on 16th February, 1984. 3. Learned counsel submitted that for implementation of the said decree, the execution application was filed before the Sub-divisional Officer and the same was dismissed and the petitioner had to file revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the revision petition was not decided and on the contrary, the impugned order dated 26th April, 2018 has been passed by the Board of Revenue on an application under Section 151 CPC. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has a valid decree in his favour and he is entitled for execution of the same. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents do not have any authority to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that due to interference made by the respondents, the petitioner had to lodge several FIRs against them and the police authorities did not take any action on the complaints being filed by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had to approach this Court earlier by filing writ petition and this Court has also given directions to the police authorities to provide safety to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel submitted that this Court had passed interim order on 5th October, 2018 and the police authorities were directed to provide protection of life and liberty to the petitioner and it was to be ensured that private respondents did not take law in their hands. 8. Learned counsel submitted that even after passing of interim order by this Court, the private respondents have interfered in peaceful possession of the petitioner and further, they have taken law in their hands. Learned counsel submitted that after interim order, the petitioner had to lodge FIR again but the police authorities did not take action against private respondents. 9. 8. Learned counsel submitted that even after passing of interim order by this Court, the private respondents have interfered in peaceful possession of the petitioner and further, they have taken law in their hands. Learned counsel submitted that after interim order, the petitioner had to lodge FIR again but the police authorities did not take action against private respondents. 9. Learned counsel argued that once the petitioner has valid decree in his favour, no person has any right to interfere in peaceful possession and fruits of decree, are required to be enjoyed by the decree holder. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in rejection the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC and the police protection was required to be given for execution of decree. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Poona Ram Vs. Moti Ram (Civil Appeal No.4527/2009) decided on 29th January, 2019 to support his submission that the petitioner is in uninterrupted, undisturbed and effective possession with due knowledge to the other side. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the decree dated 16th February, 1984, which has been granted in favour of the petitioner, is already subject matter of challenge before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawaimadhopur. 13. Learned counsel submitted that an order of status quo has been passed in favour of the respondents and as such, since there is an order in favour of the respondents of maintaining status quo, the present writ petitions may not be entertained by this Court. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 15. Learned Additional Government Counsel Ms.Sunita Satyarthi submitted that the police authorities have always taken prompt steps as per the directions given by this Court from time to time and it is a dispute between two private parties in respect of their possession and as such, the police has little role in solving the problem, due to inter se dispute between the parties. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. This Court finds that the decree dated 16th February, 1984, which is passed in favour of the petitioner, is a subject matter of challenge before the Revenue Appellate Authority and status quo order has been passed in the said appeal. 18. This Court finds that once the status quo order has been passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the dispute with regard to the possession, has arisen between the parties, as the petitioner has claimed that since last more than 30 years, he is in peaceful and uninterrupted possession and the respondents have interfered in his possession and as such, the Board of Revenue ought to have entertained the application of the petitioner of providing police protection for maintaining the possession with the petitioner. 19. This Court further finds that due to order of status quo, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the present situation has arisen where this Court, at one point of time, had also directed the police authorities to provide safety to the petitioner and the respondents were restrained to take law in their hands. 20. This Court finds that the appeal, which is filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the decree dated 16th February, 1984, needs to be decided expeditiously. 21. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal is hopelessly time barred and as such, the application, which is filed by the private respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, needs to be decided at the first instance and if the application is allowed then only the Appellate Court can enter into merits of the case. 22. This Court holds that the Revenue Appellate Authority will decide the appeal and if there is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same will also be decided by taking into all the relevant facts and objections, which may be raised by both the parties. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawamimadhopur Camp, Hindaun City, after providing adequate opportunity to both the parties, will decide the appeal within a period of three months. 23. The petitioner is free to file relevant documents and to cite relevant case-laws before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 24. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of. 25. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawamimadhopur Camp, Hindaun City, after providing adequate opportunity to both the parties, will decide the appeal within a period of three months. 23. The petitioner is free to file relevant documents and to cite relevant case-laws before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 24. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of. 25. A copy of this order be separately placed in each file.