Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2923 (RAJ)

Nathu Lal v. Narendra Singh

2019-12-02

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 12th July, 2019, whereby the Board of Revenue has accepted the revision petition filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") against the order dated 25th November, 2011 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a revenue suit was filed before the SDM Court, Lakheri, District Bundi by the petitioners for seeking declaration, permanent injunction and correction in the revenue entry. The petitioners also filed an application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 for temporary injunction. The SDM Court, vide its order dated 23rd June, 2010, allowed the application of the petitioners of temporary injunction and directed to maintain the status quo of the land and revenue record in respect of the land situated in Khasra Nos.102, 103 and 109 measuring 2.54 hectare situated in Village Laban, Tehsil Indragarh till final disposal of the suit. 3. The order dated 23rd June, 2010 was assailed by the respondent Narendra Singh before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, vide order dated 25th November, 2011, dismissed the appeal of the respondent Narendra Singh and upheld the order passed by the SDM, Lakheri, Bundi dated 23rd June, 2010. 4. The respondent Narendra Singh, feeling aggrieved against the order dated 25th November, 2011, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, filed revision petition under Section 230 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide impugned order dated 12th July, 2019 challenged in the present writ petition, has allowed the revision petition and has set aside the order dated 25th November, 2011 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the order dated 23rd June, 2010 passed by SDM, Lakheri, Bundi and the Board of Revenue has come to the conclusion that basis of entire suit of the petitioners is unregistered and unstamped document, said to be executed on 6th June, 1963. 5. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in allowing the revision petition in favour of the respondents. 6. 5. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in allowing the revision petition in favour of the respondents. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue could not have set aside the orders passed by the SDM Court, Lakheri and the Revenue Appellate Authority, as these orders do not suffer from legal infirmity. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that since the main suit is pending before the Authority SDM Court, Lakheri, after passing the order in favour of the petitioners on injunction in 2010, reversal of finding was not required in the facts of the present case. 8. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Arun Sharma, appearing for the respondents, submitted that this Court need not to interfere in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, as the order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue has rightly taken view that no right can be conferred on the basis of unregistered and unstamped document, conferring title in favour of somebody. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that it is trite law that unregistered and unstamped document cannot be admitted in evidence and as such, no credence can be attached to such unregistered and unstamped document. 11. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KB Saha and Sons Private Limited Vs. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 and Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (SLP (C) No.13917/2009) decided on 11th October, 2011. 12. Learned counsel also places reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in SB Civil Writ Petition No.14361/2016 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs.Ranjeet Singh and Ors.) decided on 10th January, 2017. 13. On the strength of said judgments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when no prima facie case is proved in favour of the petitioners, no fault can be made out in the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that since the unregistered document is prima facie inadmissible in evidence, solely on the basis of said document, no right can be claimed by the plaintiff/s. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that since the unregistered document is prima facie inadmissible in evidence, solely on the basis of said document, no right can be claimed by the plaintiff/s. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. There is no dispute on the proposition of law that the unregistered document is prima facie inadmissible in evidence and further, the Court has to consider about the said document at the time of deciding the controversy while giving finding on the basis of the said document. 17. This Court finds that in the present case, temporary injunction was passed by the SDM Court on 23rd June, 2010 and only direction to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the land and revenue record, was given. 18. This Court finds that temporary injunction has been continued till the acceptance of revision petition filed by the respondent/s vide order dated 12th July, 2019. 19. This Court finds that in the present facts of the case, the main suit itself is required to be decided by the Revenue Court. The subsequent development, which has been narrated by learned counsel for the respondents, is also in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the same land and further, criminal cases have also been registered between the parties. 20. This Court, considering the nature of the dispute and subsequent events, which have taken place, deems it proper to direct the SDM Court, Lakheri, District Bundi to decide the main suit, which is filed by the petitioners in respect of declaration, permanent injunction and correction of entry. The endeavour should be made by the SDM Court, Lakheri, District Bundi to dispose of the suit expeditiously but in no case later than six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 21. This Court, while setting aside the order dated 12th July, 2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, directs both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question and the revenue record will also not be altered till disposal of the main suit by the SDM Court, Lakheri, District Bundi. 22. The present writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.