Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2737 (RAJ)

Shankar Adopted v. Bodu

2019-10-22

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
ORDER 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision petition filed by the respondents. The Board of Revenue has issued notices on 16.07.2019 after admitting the revision petition and further on stay application, the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, has been stayed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 18.04.2019 passed on an application filed under Section 251 A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was put to challenge by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority on 27.05.2019 after considering the prima facie case, had stayed the operation of order dated 18.04.2019. Counsel submitted that the revision petition filed by the respondents was not maintainable against interim order dated 27.05.2019 and as such the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in entertaining the revision petition and further passed the order dated 16.07.2019 while staying the operation of order dated 27.05.2019, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue ought to have considered the order passed on the application under Section 251 A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was a prima facie illegal order and as such the Appellate Authority on 27.05.2019, had stayed the operation of the said order in favour of the petitioner. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondent-caveat or submitted that the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue does not require any interference. Counsel further submitted that on 05.08.2019, the right of way, as ordered under Section 251 A, has been made use of, by removing of encroachment as such the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue has been complied with. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondents further deposited Rs. 155520/- as per directions given by the SDO Shahpura. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue on 16.07.2019 has admitted the revision petition filed by the respondents and further stayed the operation of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 155520/- as per directions given by the SDO Shahpura. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue on 16.07.2019 has admitted the revision petition filed by the respondents and further stayed the operation of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Board of Revenue is required to give opportunity to the petitioner and after hearing both the parties, the Board of Revenue may pass appropriate order on the maintainability of the revision petition as well as on the stay application which has been filed by the respondents. 6. The Board of Revenue while taking into account the legal position as well as the other relevant aspect, has to form its opinion as whether the revision petition will be maintainable against an order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on stay application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the SDO as the Court-Revenue Appellate Authority has only stayed the operation of order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the SDO. 7. This Court further finds that the petitioner will have all the rights to address before the Board of Revenue on merits of the case and after taking into account the submission of both the parties, the Board of Revenue may decide the revision petition as well as the stay application. It is expected from the Board of Revenue that the stay application filed by the respondents which is opposed by the petitioner, will be decided in expeditious manner and endevour should be made to dispose of the said application within a period of 15 days after receipt of certified copy of this order. This Court also finds that the subsequent developments after passing of the order by the Board of Revenue like removal of encroachment, etc. will be taken into account and till the stay application of the petitioner is decided, no further action will be taken by the respondents in respect of the dispute in hand. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.