Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1586 (RAJ)

Laxmi Narayan v. The State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-16

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
ORDER 1. The case comes up on an application (01/22) for early hearing of the matter. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being taken up today itself and decided finally. 4. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09/10/2015 passed by Board of Revenue, whereby learned Board of Revenue allowed the appeal of the respondent Chandan Mal and set aside the order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 28/05/2014 maintaining the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 29/07/2011. 5. Briefly the facts in the case are that the petitioner purchased a piece of land along with the private respondents in Khasra No.58 of Village Nausariya, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a suit for partition before Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Dungargarh. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner along with the private respondents entered into a compromise. The partition suit was decided by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Dungargarh on the basis of meets and bounds of the said compromise. Learned Sub Divisional officer also directed the parties to provide a way of 3 meters to the respondent - Chandan Mal till the boundary of his field as per the Revenue Map. This order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 29/07/2011 was assailed by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 28/05/2014 remanded the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for deciding the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing and taking the reply of the respondents on record. The Revenue Appellate Authority directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the question of availability of a way of 3 meters to be provided by the petitioner and other respondents to respondent Chandan Mal for going to his field. This order of Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the respondent Chandan Mal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 09/10/2015 allowed the appeal of the respondent Chandan Mal and set aside the order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 28/05/2014 maintaining the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 29/07/2011. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is not correct as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while giving a direction by the Sub Divisional Officer to provide a way/passage of 3 meters to the respondent Chandan Mal for going to his field. He further submits that the Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly observed that no copy of the application/written statement so filed by the respondent Chandan Mal has been provided to the petitioner before the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer and the order of providing a way of 3 meters for going to the field of respondent Chandan Mal has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is incorrect and prays for quashing of the same. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Chandan Mal submits that in pursuance of a compromise decree, the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order and since the field of the respondent Chandan Mal is situated at the end of the fields of all the parties who have entered into the compromise, therefore, right of way provided by the Sub Divisional Officer is in conformity with Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned orders as well as relevant record of the case. 9. The decree awarded on the basis of compromise between the parties by the Sub Divisional Officer is neither disputed by learned counsel for the parties nor the fact that the respondent Chandan Mal has been provided a 3 meter way from the disputed land without providing them a copy of the application/written statement is disputed. 10. 9. The decree awarded on the basis of compromise between the parties by the Sub Divisional Officer is neither disputed by learned counsel for the parties nor the fact that the respondent Chandan Mal has been provided a 3 meter way from the disputed land without providing them a copy of the application/written statement is disputed. 10. Since the Revenue Appellate Authority has remanded the matter only on the ground that if the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order of providing a 3 meter way to the respondent Chandan Mal for going to his field then the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is required to be given by giving him a copy of the application/written statement preferred by the respondent Chandan Mal. This Court finds that the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is perfectly justified and it is held that even if the respondent Chandan Mal is entitled for a right of way for going to his field in accordance with Section 251A of the Act of 1955, then the copy of the application/written statement so preferred is required to be given to the effected persons i.e. the petitioner. Since the same has not been provided, therefore, Revenue Appellate Authority was justified in remanding the matter to the Sub Divisional officer for deciding afresh on the point for determining the fact that a reasonable passage in the form of 3 meters way is required to be provided to the respondent Chandan Mal for going to his field. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition is allowed. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 09/10/2015 is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 28/05/2014 is maintained. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer and learned Sub Divisional Officer shall decide the controversy with respect to the passage/way to be provided to the respondent Chandan Mal from the lands in question after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned party. 12. The controversy so remanded shall be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today. 13. Needless to observe that the respondent Chandan Mal will be free to move an appropriate application under Section 251A of the Act of 1955 for interim arrangement in accordance with law. 12. The controversy so remanded shall be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today. 13. Needless to observe that the respondent Chandan Mal will be free to move an appropriate application under Section 251A of the Act of 1955 for interim arrangement in accordance with law. 14. The stay application as well as other pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.