Disposed

Mool Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Mar 2016CW/2217/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging that the Board of Revenue violated principles of balance of convenience, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the matter without interfering with the impugned order, directing the Collector to decide the pending suit within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; direction to Collector to decide pending suit within nine months.

Mool Shankar and Ors. Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.2217/2016

¶3

Moot Shankar & Ors.

¶4

VS.

¶5

Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

¶6

Date of Order

¶7

. . . . 02"~ March, 2016

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

¶11

Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, for the petitioners'. ***

¶12

BY THE COURT:

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('Board'), whereby, the Board has set aside the order dated 13.07.1999 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, siroh/ ('RAA'), wherein, the RAA had set aside the order dated 11.01.1999 passed by the Assistant Collector, Abu Road ('Collector'), whereby, on an application filed by the respondent N0s.4 and 5 under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') an order was passed for maintaining status quo.

¶14

The Collector by his order dated. 11.01.1999, though came '.-to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had no prima face case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury was also not in their favour, still passed an order for maintaining status quo qua the land in question.

¶15

Whereafter, on an appeal filed by the respondents, the RAA by its order dated 13.07.1999 accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Collector.

¶16

The respondents aggrieved against the order passed by

¶17

the RAA, approached the Board and the Board by its order dated 14.05.2015 has set aside the order passed by the RAA and upheld the order dated 11.01.1999 passed by the Collector.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders passed by the Collector and the Board cannot be sustained as once the finding was recorded that the respondents had no prima facie case in their favour and that there was lack of balance of convenience and irreparable injury in their favour, there was no question of grant of any status quo order. The RAA rightly set aside the order passed by the Collector, and the Board should not have interfered with the said order. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶19

A perusal of the record reveals that the suit was filed way back in the year 1998 and the application under Section 212 of the Act was decided in the year 1999 by the Collector and the appeal by RAA in 1999 itself, however, the matter remained pending before the Board for all these years and now the same has been decided restoring the order of status quo as passed by the Collector.

¶20

In view of the fact that the suit is pending for last over 18 years and some way or the other there has remained an injunction either by way of interim order or as the final orders have now been passed by the Board, instead of interfering with the orders passed by the authorities below, it would be in the interest of justice as well as the parties involved in the litigation that the Collector is directed to decide the suit itself within a specific time limit.

¶21

¶22

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the Collector to decide the suit pending before it within a period of nine months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it. It shall be ensured that necessary adjournments are not granted in the matter and the suit must be decided most expeditiously.

¶23

(ARUN BHANSALI),'J.

Mool Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mool Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Mohata Minor Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mohan Ram Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Kana Ram and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Paramjeet Singh and Anr. Vs Simran Singh Barad and Ors.

Tarun Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs State and Ors.