Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2822 (RAJ)

Jay Singh v. Board Of Revenue

2019-11-11

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The writ petition at hand has been preferred against the order dated 03.01.2019, passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), vide which revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955"), has been dismissed, inter alia, observing that the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority was not maintainable. 2. The facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration under Section 88 of the Act of 1955, with an assertion that the disputed property is an ancestral property and he be declared entitled for 1/3 share in such property. 3. An ad-interim injunction was granted in petitioner's favour on 17.09.2018, which was subsequently vacated by the Assistant Collector- Sub-Divisional Officer, vide order dated 20.09.2018 in pursuance of an application, which was filed by the present respondent No.8 who contended that petitioner's father had sold the subject land to him. It was further asserted that the property in question was self acquired property of petitioner's father Shri Gugan Ram (respondent No.4 herein). 4. Challenging the order dated 20.09.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 225 of the Act before the Revenue Appellate Authority, alongwith stay application. The Revenue Appellate Authority rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 24.09.2018. 5. The aforesaid order dated 24.09.2018, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue by way of filing a revision petition. The same was dismissed by the Board vide impugned order dated 03.01.2019, holding that petitioner's appeal under Section 225 of the Act of 1955, preferred against an interlocutory order was not maintainable. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court while challenging the order dated 03.01.2019, passed by learned Board of Revenue so also the order dated 24.09.2018, passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. 7. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an ad-interim injunction granted in petitioner's favour has been vacated by the Trial Court pursuant to the application filed by the respondent No.8, who was admittedly not a party to the proceedings. 7. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an ad-interim injunction granted in petitioner's favour has been vacated by the Trial Court pursuant to the application filed by the respondent No.8, who was admittedly not a party to the proceedings. Challenging the order passed by the Courts below, he contended that the learned Trial Court was thus not justified in vacating the ad-interim order, granted in petitioner's favour and the Courts below in affirming such illegal order. 8. It was further argued that the learned Board of Revenue has erred in rejecting petitioner's revision petition on the ground that his appeal was not maintainable, having been filed against the interlocutory order dated 17.09.2018. In support of his contention, learned counsel cited judgment of this Court in Khema Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2014 1 DNJ 35 (Raj) . 9. Mr. Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 - Caveator submitted that the respondent No.8 is a bonafide purchaser of the land, which has been sold by none other than petitioner's father Gugan Ram that the contentious land was his self acquired property. The petitioner did not have any case worth grant of injunction in his favour, hence the Courts below have committed no error of law, he added. 10. Be that is it may, without going into the merit of the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the Board of Revenue has erred in rejecting petitioner's revision petition on the count that petitioner's appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority was not maintainable, as the same had been preferred against an interlocutory order dated 20.09.2018. Having regard to judgment of Court in Khema Ram (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Board of Revenue was erroneous. 11. However, remanding the matter to the Board of Revenue and thereafter requiring the Appellate Court to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.09.2018, would be a futile and cumbersome exercise. 12. In any case, this Court is of the firm view that the learned Court below could not have vacated the ad-interim order dated 20.09.2018 at the instance of the respondent No.8, the purchaser of the property, who was neither a party nor any impleadment application was filed by him. 12. In any case, this Court is of the firm view that the learned Court below could not have vacated the ad-interim order dated 20.09.2018 at the instance of the respondent No.8, the purchaser of the property, who was neither a party nor any impleadment application was filed by him. Before passing any order of vacating or modifying the interim order, the respondent No.8 is required to be impleaded as party to the lis. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. 14. The impugned orders dated 20.09.2018, passed by the Assistant Collector Sub-Divisional Officer, order dated 24.09.2018, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, so also the order dated 03.01.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue are quashed and set aside. 15. The respondent No.8 Gauri Shankar, alleging himself to be a purchaser of the land will be at liberty to move an impleadment application. In case his application is allowed and he is impleaded as party, he shall be free to file application seeking vacation/modification of the ad-interim order. 16. As and when such application for vacation/modification of the order is filed, the Assistant Collector-Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the same, in accordance with law. 17. The Assistant Collector-Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide impleadment application so also the vacation of interim order (if filed within 10 days from today), as early as possible preferably by 31.12.2019. 18. Needless to observe that since the order dated 20.09.2018 vacating the interim order has been quashed by this Court, adinterim order dated 17.09.2018 shall stand revived and it shall continue until modified/vacated by the Trial Court. 19. Stay petition also stands disposed of.