A writ petition was filed by Ramchandra challenging an order by the Board of Revenue regarding the disputed property, which maintained a previous revenue order despite a pending and subsequently withdrawn specific performance suit by the petitioner.
The writ petition was dismissed and the order dated 10.3.2008 was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2346/2008
Ramchandra Vs.
Board of Revenue & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER :: 09-04-2008
HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J.
Mr. Kishan Bansal, for the petitioner.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby the appeal preferred by Gurdev Singh and Mahendra Singh was allowed and the order passed by Tehsildar, Hanumangarh on 24.4.1998 was maintained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in dispute was purchased by the petitioner pursuant to agreement to sale dated 21.5.1997 and while the order dated 24.4.1998 was passed, a suit for specific performance was pending before the Court which then was withdrawn on 9.9.2008 as the original owner executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, for that purposes, though the petitioner has not placed on record a copy of the agreement or sale deed. However, even ignoring this aspect, when the order dated 24.4.2008 is perused, it comes out that the original owner had nowhere mentioned that the land in dispute has been agreed to be sold to be petitioner and thereby without disclosure of such fact by the original owner, the
2
order dated 24.4.1998 was passed and which had attained finality, inasmuch as it has not been subsequently challenged. It seems that to overcome the order dated 24.4.2008, the petitioner was brought in picture and by way of indirect transactions, the effect of the order dated 24.4.2008 is tried to be taken away.
Precisely taking note of all these aspects as well as the effect of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Board of Revenue treated the petitioner to be stranger to the order dated 24.4.2008 and thus not considering petitioner to be a concerned party, the order impugned has been passed. It is not in dispute that the order dated 24.4.1998 was passed in presence of the original owner and the orders subsequently passed was nothing but compliance of the order dated 24.4.1998. The sale deed is dated 7.9.1998 which then is subsequent to the order dated 24.4.1998, hence even if the petitioner was having a right pursuant to the sale deed, he cannot claim better right then what the original owner had. Thus, looking from any angle, it cannot be said that execution of the order dated 24.4.1998 can be effected pursuant to the subsequent sale deed. If the transaction was so bonafide and agreement to sale executed before 24.4.1998, nobody prevented the original owner to bring these facts on record and once those facts were not brought on record while the order
3
dated 24.4.1998 passed, it cannot be said that there exist any error in the order.
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any error in the impugned order.
[Munishwar Nath Bhandari],J.
Praveen
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was a concerned party entitled to execute the order dated 24.4.1998 under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act given that the original owner did not disclose the sale agre
Whether the subsequent sale deed executed after the impugned order dated 24.4.1998 affords the petitioner a better right to the property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramchandra
Board of Revenue
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
