Dismissed

Kalawati v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Jan 2016CW/504/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that while it has no jurisdiction to direct the respondents to protect land possession pending before jurisdictional courts, it directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision petition within four weeks. The writ petition was dismissed after issuing the direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision petition within four weeks after prior notice to the respondents.

Kalawati Vs State and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.504/2016

¶3

Kalawati Vs.

¶4

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Date of Order

14.01.2016

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶9

Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. O.P.Sangwa, for the petitioner.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents No. I to 4 to protect the petitioner's possession of the land in dispute and restrain respondents No. 5 & 6 from causing obstruction. Further relief has been sought that the Board. of Revenue may be directed to hear and decide the revision petition filed by the respondents No.5 & 6 expeditiously.

¶12

The respondents No. 5 & 6 filed a suit against the petitioner and along with the suit, an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') was filed. The SDO by the order dated 29.9.2015 rejected the application filed by the respondents No. 5 & 6.

¶13

Feeling aggrieved, the respondents No.5 & 6 filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh ('RAA'). Along with the appeal, an application seeking interim stay was filed, which application came to be rejected by the RAA

¶14

¶15

It is submitted that despite rejection of applications by the SDO and the RAA, respondents No. 5 & 6 were seeking to interfere in the petitioner's possession and were not following the rule of law. It is submitted that further to the dismissal of the ad interim application filed along with the appeal by the RAA on 1.10.2015, the respondents No. 5 & 6 have filed revision petition before Board of Revenue ('BOR') and the BOR may be directed to decide the said revision expeditiously.

¶16

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, as the proceedings qua the land in dispute are already pending before jurisdictional court, no case for passing any order regarding the land/possession/interference/ obstruction by this Court is made out in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is, therefore, free to approach the jurisdictional courts in this regard.

¶17

However, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding expeditious disposal of the revision filed by the respondents before the BOR appears to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

In view thereof, it is directed that the BOR shall decide the revision filed by the respondents No. 5 & 6 within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the BOR, after prior notice to respondents No. 5 & 6.

¶19

With the above direction, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

¶20

(ARUN BHANSALI), 1.

Kalawati v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Lal Vs Ashok Kumar

Lrs of Late Sh. Indermal Vs Takhat Singh

Praveen Lata Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bhagwati Prasad Vs Laxmi Narayan

Mata Bhai and Anr. Vs Shri Balkrishan Sarv. Goshala A.S.S.

Bhagwati Prasad Vs Laxmi Narayan