Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1519 (RAJ)

Sumit Bhandari S/o Narendra Bahadur Singh Bhandari v. Janki Devi W/o Kishan Lal

2025-09-03

SANJEET PUROHIT, SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises from the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2024 whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents was disposed of, granting liberty to the writ petitioners for raising the grievance before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 13.06.2024 and further directed the Board to first decide the said application before proceeding further. The directions were also to the Board to decide the revision within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the revision petition preferred by the respondents was pending before the Board of Revenue and the preliminary objections have been raised by moving an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), on the maintainability of the revision petition and on the preliminary objections. Initially the Board of Revenue had heard the counsels and reserved the order on 16.05.2024, however, on 20.05.2024, without any cogent reasons, the case was released for fresh arguments on application, on preliminary objections. The Board of Revenue again vide order dated 13.06.2024, directed the case to be listed for arguments on preliminary objections on 14.06.2024. 3. Learned counsel submits that without any cogent cause of action, the writ petition was filed before this Court. In the writ petition, certain dates were omitted and it was not informed to the Court that the application on preliminary objections had already been heard again and judgment has been reserved, thereafter, it had been released by the Board of Revenue and again directed to be heard on preliminary objections. It is submitted that in the writ petition, it was stated that because the revision petition had already been admitted and record had been called for, there was no occasion to examine the preliminary objections, although the admission order was an ex-parte order. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge was uncalled for and the entire action of the respondents was to delay the proceedings. Although the respondents cannot be said to be, in any manner, connected with the decision taken of the correction notification issued relating to the land of the appellants, which had been divided into two halves, on account of the acquisition proceedings taken up by the railways from their piece of land. Although the respondents cannot be said to be, in any manner, connected with the decision taken of the correction notification issued relating to the land of the appellants, which had been divided into two halves, on account of the acquisition proceedings taken up by the railways from their piece of land. She has pointed out that so far as the respondent is concerned, he had a separate piece of land bearing a separate Khasra Number namely; 334 and the same was also divided into two halves, for which revised Khasra numbers along with the area were required to be issued separately. The correction of the land of the appellants in Khasra No.335 was, therefore, independent of the correction to be made in the land of the respondents. However, on account of the revision being entertained by the Board of Revenue, as application was moved raising preliminary objections which were required to be decided one way or the other, the respondents have been delaying the process. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. 5. We are of the view that if the Court has passed an order, first, to examine the grievances of the respondents and then decide the main revision petition, there would be further delay. 6. Learned counsels for the respondents have put in appearance and we, therefore, asked him the reasons for approaching the Court in writ petition and whether the writ petition would be maintainable with regard to an order of the Board, whereby it directs for hearing the application on preliminary objections. Learned counsel has not been able to give a satisfactory answer to the query and has mentioned facts which are not relevant to the case, i.e., with regard to the subsequent transfer of properties of the appellants to some other individual. 7. A close look of the writ petition filed by the respondents also reveals certain facts regarding earlier proceedings relating to hearing of the application on preliminary objections and the judgment being reserved and the same being later released have been conveniently omitted in the facts. 8. 7. A close look of the writ petition filed by the respondents also reveals certain facts regarding earlier proceedings relating to hearing of the application on preliminary objections and the judgment being reserved and the same being later released have been conveniently omitted in the facts. 8. A look at the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2024, reflects that an impression was placed before the learned Single Judge that the Board was hearing the case without calling for record, whereas, it has been brought to the knowledge of the Court that vide noting dated 01.04.2024, photocopy of the record was received, relying on provision of Section 84 of the Land Revenue Act , 1956, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to direct the Board to first hear the application of the respondent-Janki Devi, who is herself revisionist before the Board. In fact, it was the application moved under Section 151 CPC by the appellants (respondents before the Board of Revenue), raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability which was required to be heard first. 9. In view thereto, we find that the respondents have successfully gotten the matter delayed without, in any manner, being directly connected with the division of bearing Khasra No.335 to 335/1, 335/2 and 335. Despite their land bearing separate Khasra No.334, they have delayed the entire process of the land being properly mutated in name of the appellants. It is a case of gross abuse of process of law. The very fact of whether the revision would lie is yet to be decided by the Board of Revenue and in the meanwhile the writ petition was filed against the order dated 13.06.2024, resulting in an order being passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned before us. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge, hold that the writ petition was mischievous attempt to delay the process of deciding the application on preliminary objections before the Board and accordingly, we direct the Board of Revenue to now proceed and decide the application on preliminary objections expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from today. 10. In view of our finding as above, we impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the respondents, to be paid to the appellants, for filing a frivolous petition. 11. 10. In view of our finding as above, we impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the respondents, to be paid to the appellants, for filing a frivolous petition. 11. Our findings as above, should not come in a way of the Board of Revenue, to decide the case without being influenced. 12. The present Special Appeal (Writ) is, accordingly, allowed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.