Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 474 (RAJ)

Koyali Devi v. Barfi Devi

2020-03-04

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2020
ORDER 1. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that ignoring the fact that land of khasra No.522, village Samarpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur is lying mortgaged with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Samod, (for short "the SBBJ"), the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur has, vide its order dated 02.02.2018, passed under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") granted right of way to the respondent No.1-Smt. Barfi Devi. 2. Facts in brief are that the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, after hearing the present petitioner, was allowed. The appeal preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 10.09.2018. The revision petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide its order dated 25.06.2019. 3. Without assailing the orders impugned herein on merit, the two fold contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has been that since the land of Khasra No.522 is lying mortgaged with the SBBJ since the year 2014, any order under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 would entail prejudice to her as the Bank in all probability is likely to initiate criminal proceedings against her for parting with possession of part of the mortgaged property which would be obvious consequence of the order granting way through her land under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. Second limb of contention is that the order impugned has been passed in collusion by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur with the respondents No.1 & 2. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the orders dated 02.02.2018, 10.09.2018 and dated 25.06.2019, reveals that nowhere the petitioner has raised any such objection that the land in question was subjected to mortgage with the SBBJ. It appears that when the petitioner could not find any substance against the orders on merit, as an afterthought, this writ petition has been filed on this wholly misconceived and misplaced plea. Even otherwise also, physical possession of the land in question is with the petitioner and the factum of mortgage does not come in way of maintaining the orders impugned herein. Even otherwise also, physical possession of the land in question is with the petitioner and the factum of mortgage does not come in way of maintaining the orders impugned herein. The apprehension shown by the petitioner of launch of criminal proceedings against her on account of the order passed under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, is imaginary. There is no material on record to substantiate allegation of the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur in collusion with the respondents No.1 & 2. Suffice it to say that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer has been upheld by the appellate authority vide its judgment dated 02.02.2018 as well as by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 25.06.2019 in its revisional jurisdiction on merit and allegation of the petitioner has no feet to stand. 6. I find no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Stay application filed along with writ petition also stands disposed of.