Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2918 (RAJ)

Kanaram v. Mahaveer

2019-11-29

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dt. 26th September, 2019, passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Petition No. Revision/TA/4474/2019, Ajmer, titled as "Mahaveer and Ors. Vs. Kanaram and Ors." 2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tehsildar, Nasirabad had passed an order dt. 30th July, 2019 on an application filed by the petitioners under Section 183 B & C of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, seeking eviction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who were in unauthorized occupation of the land. 3. Counsel submitted that the Tehsildar, Nasirabad accepted the application of the petitioners and passed an order that the respondents were liable to be evicted from the lands bearing Khasra No.383 measuring 0.59; Khasra No.385 measuring 0.06; and Khasra No. 671 measuring 0.01. 4. Counsel submitted that the order dt. 30th July, 2019, was challenged by the respondents by filing appeal before the Additional Collector, Ajmer and stay application was also filed along with the appeal. Counsel submitted that on 2nd August, 2019, appeal was registered and the order was passed to summon the record from the Tehsildar concerned. The Appellate Court also issued notices to the petitioners, to be returnable on 11th September, 2019.Counsel submitted that on 7th August, 2019, the respondents moved an application for early hearing on the stay application. The Appellate Court vide order dt. 7th August, 2019, found that since the notices were issued on 2th August, 2019 for appearance of the petitioners, as such without hearing the petitioners, it was not found appropriate to grant any interim order and accordingly, the stay application was rejected and the next date was fixed on 11th September, 2019. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that service was effected before the Appellate Court on 11th September, 2019 and as such counsel was present on behalf of the petitioners on 11th September, 2019 before the Appellate Court. 6. The respondents feeling aggrieved against the order dt. 7th August, 2019, filed above mentioned revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by order dt. 6. The respondents feeling aggrieved against the order dt. 7th August, 2019, filed above mentioned revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by order dt. 26th September, 2019 allowed the revision petition and directed that the respondents would not be evicted till decision of the appeal by the Appellate forum and further direction has been given that record may be summoned from the Tehsildar and after availability of the record, the main appeal was to be decided by hearing both the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, submitted that the revision petition, by the impugned order dt. 26th September, 2019 has been allowed by the Board of Revenue even without issuing notices to the petitioners. Counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue has followed unusual procedure of not even considering the service on the petitioners before the Appellate Court and the direction has been issued straightway of not evicting the respondents. 8. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue has committed an error while passing the impugned order dt. 26th September, 2019 and if the revision was to be allowed, at least the notices were required to be given to the petitioners and after service on the petitioners, the Revisional Court could have passed the appropriate orders. 10. This Court further finds that ex-parte direction given in absence of the petitioners seriously affects their rights and as such without giving/providing opportunity of hearing, the Court below ought not to have passed the order, allowing the revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to give opportunity to the petitioners to address on the maintainability of the revision petition and after considering the merits of the case, pass any order on stay application, which might have been filed by the respondents along with the revision petition. 12. The petitioners may move appropriate application before the Board of Revenue and the same may be considered by the Board of Revenue within a period of fifteen days, after filing of the application.