Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 473 (RAJ)

Jagtar Singh v. Gajjan Singh

2020-03-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, while accepting the revision petition filed by the petitioners, further directions have been given. 2. In a suit filed by respondent for declaration and possession, the SDO passed a decree on 3.7.2009. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Revenue Appellate Authority. 4. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 21.7.2009 stayed the execution of the decree passed by the SDO on petitioners depositing Rs. 2,000/- per bigha per crop for the command land and Rs.800 per bigha per crop for the uncommand land with the Tehsildar. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Board of Revenue. 6. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 7.8.2009 stayed the execution of order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and ordered for maintaining status quo. When the revision petition came up for final disposal, the Board of Revenue by its order impugned dated 26.11.2019 reduced the amount of deposit to Rs. 2,000 per bigha per year for the command land and Rs.500 per bigha per year for the uncommand land, however, in the operative portion, it was directed that the said change will be applicable from the date of order and for the previous years the order as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority would be applicable. 7. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue reads as under:- 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Board of Revenue, in reducing the amount of deposit and then ordering the same to be applicable from the date of order and requiring the petitioners to deposit the amount at the previous rate, which already stood modified, is not justified. 9. Submissions have been made that as there was already a stay by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners had not deposited the amount at enhanced rate and, therefore, the direction would burden the petitioners and is not justified. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents attempting to support the order impugned. It was submitted that the Board of Revenue has passed the order based on the discretion vested in it which does not call for any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents attempting to support the order impugned. It was submitted that the Board of Revenue has passed the order based on the discretion vested in it which does not call for any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The facts are not in dispute wherein the amount required to be deposited by the Revenue Appellate Authority was first stayed by the Board of Revenue and ultimately reduced by its final order. 13. The passing of the order to maintain the enhanced amount till the date of passing of the order, in the circumstances of the case, where already a stay on the deposit of amount was passed, does not appear to be justified. 14. The things would have been different if the petitioners had deposited the amount as ordered by the Revenue Appellate Authority till passing of the order, however, as the said order was stayed, no amount was deposited by the petitioners. In view thereof, the order passed by the Board of Revenue to the extent that the same has been made prospective, cannot be sustained. 15. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 26.11.2019 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue is modified to the extent that the order would be applicable from the date of passing of the order by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 16. The petitioners would deposit the amount as per the modified directions of the Board of Revenue within a period of two months from today and continue to do the same in terms of the order passed by the Revenue appellate Authority as modified by the Board of Revenue and this Court.