Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2838 (RAJ)

Galol v. Ram Kuwnar (died)

2019-11-14

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Instant special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.4.2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners was dismissed in limine. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Badri Narain filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tonk against the order of Gram Panchayat, Chainpura dated 20.11.1982 whereby the land bearing Khasra Nos.327 and 97 in the khatedari of Late Kesar Lal was mutated in favour of his family members - parties to the appeal. In the meanwhile, a compromise was entered into between the parties on 3.8.1983 which was duly verified and on the basis of the said compromise, the Sub Divisional Officer, Tonk remanded the matter back to Gram Panchayat Roopwas, Chainpura to open the mutation as per the compromise entered into between the parties and the order of Gram Panchayat dated 20.11.1982 was set aside. Aggrieved against the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Tonk dated 14.9.1983, appellants herein Smt. Galol and Smt. Sita filed appeal under Section 76 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, which was partly allowed and the order of Sub Divisional officer, Tonk dated 14.9.1983 and of Gram Panchayat, Chainpura dated 20.11.1982 was set aside. Thereafter the order of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, was challenged before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Board of Revenue, after holding that the appeal was filed after a lapse of 27 years before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, and the compromise entered into between the parties on 3.8.1983 was never challenged by the appellants herein, the revision petition filed by the legal representatives of respondent No.1 Ram Kunwar, was allowed and the order of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer dated 26.2.2015 was set aside. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the order of Board of Revenue dated 11.1.2017 by filing a writ petition before this court bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5153/2017, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by holding that condonation of delay of 27 years cannot be said to be justified and only on the ground of limitation, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this special appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of learned Single Judge is contrary to law and facts of the case. Hence, this special appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of learned Single Judge is contrary to law and facts of the case. It was submitted that the appellants never have been a party to the compromise alleged to have been entered into on 3.8.1983. In fact, the compromise submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer was a forged document. It was further submitted that the appellants were not having any knowledge of compromise, but only on 4.6.2010 they came to know about the fact of compromise when the Sub Divisional Officer, Niwai dismissed their appeal Nos.22/2008 and 23/2008 on the basis of compromise. It was further submitted that the appellant Smt. Sita was minor at the time of execution of alleged compromise, so, she was not competent to enter into the compromise. It was also submitted that appellants did not engage any counsel on their behalf and no counsel filed any Vakalatnama on their behalf, nor any counsel identified them, nor they singed the compromise. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.4.2017. He has urged that the appellants have not offered any sufficient explanation of 27 years delay in filing the appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. In fact, they were within the knowledge of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, but even then they have not filed the appeal. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law and no interference is called for. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that one Badri Narain filed appeal against the mutation order passed by the Gram Panchayat and in the meantime, a compromise was entered into between the parties, which was attested by the Sub Divisional Officer on 3.8.1983. On the basis of the said compromise, the appeal was decided by the Sub Divisional Officer. Thereafter, after an inordinate delay of 27 years, appellants filed appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. On the basis of the said compromise, the appeal was decided by the Sub Divisional Officer. Thereafter, after an inordinate delay of 27 years, appellants filed appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. The explanation given by the appellants for such an inordinate delay was that they were not having knowledge about the compromise between the parties and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 14.9.1983. Bare statement of the appellants that they were not having any knowledge of the compromise and the order of the Sub Divisional Officer is not sufficient to condone the long delay of 27 years. Apart from it, they have not challenged the compromise before any appropriate forum, if it was a forged one as they have so alleged. After a lapse of 27 years, the appellants have preferred appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, which has not been duly explained by them. The matter is regarding entries in revenue record. The Board of Revenue has rightly observed that mutation processing are fiscal proceedings for the purpose of levy of agricultural rent (yxku) in which rights of the parties are not determined. In this background of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 8. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out. The appeal stands dismissed. It may be clarified here that the order passed in mutation proceedings will not adversely affect the rights of any party with regard to the disputed property.