Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1726 (RAJ)

Hari Ram s/o Adu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-12-19

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant (writ petitioner) has challenged the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.603/2012 (Hari Ram Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.) whereby the appellant’s writ petition, preferred against the judgment dated 06.09.2011 and order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, was dismissed. 2. The bone of contention in the present case is an agricultural land (khatedari land) comprising Khasra No.454, 455, 456, 457, 738, 470, 175, 176 & 213 total measuring 158 bighas and 3 biswas situated at Village Bhundana, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur. The said land was under the khatedari of the appellant’s (writ petitioner) father; after the death of the appellant’s father, the said land as a whole was mutated in the name of the appellant. However, as per the claim of the appellant (writ petitioner), half share in the said land has been wrongly entered in the name of respondent No.3-Smt. Keshi (since deceased, represented through her LRs herein). 3. Pertaining to his claim, as above, in the land in question, the appellant (writ petitioner) instituted a revenue suit before the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur seeking declaration and possession under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, while averring, amongst others that the said entry in the name of respondent No.3, was made on the basis of a forged sale document, and a year prior to filing of the suit, the private respondents (defendants) have illegally taken possession of the land in question. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellant, vide the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1975. 3.1. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the respondent-defendant Smt. Keshi (since deceased represented through LRs herein) preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, in the year 2006; alongwith the said appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred by the respondent-defendant. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 31.12.2009, rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the respondent, thereby, the appeal also stood dismissed. 3.2. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 31.12.2009, rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the respondent, thereby, the appeal also stood dismissed. 3.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2009, the respondent No.3 (since deceased, represented through her LRs herein), preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereupon the said appeal was partly allowed vide the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2011, while quashing and setting aside the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the judgment & decree of the learned Assistant Collector and remanding the matter back to the learned Assistant Collector for deciding the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law. Thereupon, the appellant sought review of the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2011, by preferring a review application before the learned Board of Revenue, but that too, was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.01.2012. 3.2.1. As mentioned above, since the writ petition preferred against the said judgment as well as order of the learned Board of Revenue was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant (writ petitioner). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) submitted that as the record would reveal, the learned Board of Revenue, vide the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2011, has quashed and set aside the judgment dated 31.12.2009 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, along with the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1975 of the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, while castigating the determination of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and truncating the rights of the appellant, which already stood crystallized in his favour way back in the year 1975, solely on the basis that in arriving at such conclusion, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority did not adhere to the cardinal principle of administrative law i.e. “No one should be condemned unheard” and litigating and affected party (respondent No.3, a widow lady, now deceased, herein) are always expected to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, but even the service of notice on the defendant parties, including the respondent No.3, was not effective. 4.1. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the suit was filed before the learned Assistant Collector by the appellant on 27.04.1965 impleading the respondent No.3 (now deceased, represented through her LRs herein), as one of the defendants. 4.1. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the suit was filed before the learned Assistant Collector by the appellant on 27.04.1965 impleading the respondent No.3 (now deceased, represented through her LRs herein), as one of the defendants. Even before the Assistant Collector, the defendant parties were duly served, whereupon the written statements were filed by them, including the respondent No.3. Thus, as per learned counsel, under the law, no relief can be granted to a party (like the respondent No.3 herein), who despite the above factual matrix, failed to appear before the Assistant Collector, and that, the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector was challenged before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 26 years, and hence, there being no manifest error committed by the said authority, in setting at naught, such a belated endeavour on the part of the respondent. 4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the review application was filed by the appellant before the learned Board of Revenue, stating that on the date when the matter was finally heard, it was not fixed for hearing and certain other respondents therein were not served. However, the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court did not consider such aspect of the matter, which was duly sufficient to thwart the impugned verdict of the learned Board of Revenue. 4.3. Learned counsel also submitted that that it has been mentioned in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Board of Revenue that despite the decree having been passed in the year 1975, the appellant did not proceed to seek execution thereof within 12 years, and due to such lack of efforts on part of the appellant, it appears that some apprehension of the decree being obtained for certain other reasons. However, despite the above factual matrix, on the other hand, the learned Board of Revenue, treated the service of notice upon the respondent No.3 as ineffective and also ignored the very fact that deliberately and despite being conscious of every aspect of the matter and the ongoing litigation, the respondent No.3 did not challenge the decree in question for a prolonged period of 26 years. 4.4. 4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that also the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, prior to passing the impugned order, erred in not considering the legal aspect of the matter that in case the Board of Revenue was not satisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, it could have remitted the matter back to the said authority itself, rather than remanding the matter back to the Assistant Collector for its consideration and decision afresh. This is more so, when the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1975, due to absence of assailment thereof before the appropriate Forum, for a long period of time i.e. 26 years, had attained finality and that the appeal was not decided by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on its own merits. 4.5. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments : (a) Ratansingh Vs. Vijaysingh & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 279 ; (b) The Commissioner, Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Dharwad Vs. Shrishali & Ors., 2004 (1) Civil Court Cases 78 (Karnataka); (c) Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr., 2009(1) RRT 432; and (d) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rajpal Singh Chauhan, AIR 2011 Rajasthan 101. 5. On the other hand, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant (writ petitioner), learned counsel for the respondent(s) submitted that it is a matter of record and as recorded by the learned Board of Revenue in the impugned judgment that the manner in which the proceedings came to be drawn by the Assistant Collector on certain dates and inference drawn by said Revenue Authority, regarding engaging the lawyer and getting the summons served while the respondent No.3 was not aware of the manner in which the litigation was going on, clearly indicates that the respondent No.3, who was a widow, was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the learned Assistant Collector before passing the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1975. Thus, as per learned counsel, on this count alone, it is clear that the learned Board of Revenue in the impugned judgment has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the delay occurred in filing the appeal by the respondent No.3 before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority deserved condonation, looking into the adverse affect of the judgment & decree dated 16.08.1975, upon the rights of the respondent No.3. 5.1. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the record, it is clear that fair, adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent No.3 and thus, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified, within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to entertain the writ petition of the appellant (writ petitioner), as no error was committed by the learned Board of Revenue in passing the impugned judgment. 5.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Geeta Patel (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.840/2012, decided on 07.04.2014). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights regarding the lands situated at Village Bhudana, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur on 27.04.1965. The suit was contested by the respondent No.3. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur in favour of the plaintiff on 16.08.1975. The respondent No.3, against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1975, presented appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, which was dismissed as time barred, vide judgment dated 31.12.2009; the second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which was allowed on 06.09.2011, and the order dated 31.12.2009 and the judgment & decree dated 16.08.1975 were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted back for consideration afresh. 8. The case of the appellant is that the Board of Revenue has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment, as the matter was under defect for non-filing of the certified copy of the judgment & decree dated 16.08.1975, whereas the same has been decided on merits, and the review against the same has also been rejected. 9. This Court further observes that the revenue suit was filed on 27.04.1965 and after due process of law, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 16.08.1975. Thereafter, after the first adjudication, the learned Appellate Authority should have examined the matter on its merits, but rather than going that way, the case has been dismissed only on the ground of delay, which was considerably of 11 Years. 10. Thereafter, after the first adjudication, the learned Appellate Authority should have examined the matter on its merits, but rather than going that way, the case has been dismissed only on the ground of delay, which was considerably of 11 Years. 10. The learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has rightly dealt with the matter while holding that the proceedings drawn by the original Revenue Authority on 18.01.1972, 21.11.1972 & 26.02.1974 and inference drawn by the original Revenue Authority regarding engaging of the lawyer and getting the summons serve while the respondent No.3 was not aware of the manner in which the proceedings were drawn and the facts being conspicuous of its own, disclosing certain admitted facts appreciated by the Board of Revenue as referred in para 7 of its order and arrived at a conclusion that the respondent No.3 herein has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 11. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has rightly observed that the respondent No.3-widow who should have been given adequate opportunity on merits and without giving her such opportunity arriving at a conclusion, without drawing the satisfaction regarding the actual merits of the case vis-a-vis the respondent No.3, is contrary to law. The learned Board of Revenue has merely remanded the matter back and since the appellant did not move for the execution of the decree in the period of limitation, therefore, there seems to be other facts and reasons also associated with the case. The inordinate delay being explained by the Board of Revenue and thus, the judgment of the learned Board of Revenue has not been interfered by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, and rightly so. 12. The learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in the impugned order has made a detailed analysis of the factual aspects of the case, and found that the opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the respondent No.3-widow, particularly, in the factual matrix that the decree dated 16.08.1975 was not executed upto the year 2006. 13. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant in the instant appeal. 14. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.