Dismissed

Ganpat Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2018WRW/74/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 636-day delay in filing a review petition, finding the delay excusable due to the court's failure to serve notice. On merits, the review was dismissed as no error appeared on the record.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; review application dismissed on merits as no error apparent on the face of the record.

Ganpat Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Review No. 74 / 2016

¶3

Ganpat Lal S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra @ Chandria, aged 75 years

¶4

Likhma Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra @ Chandria, aged 65 years

¶5

Prem Sukh S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra @ Chandria, aged 62 years

¶6

Pukh Raj S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra @ Chandria, aged 60 years

¶7

Jai Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra @ Chandria, aged 55 years

¶8

All are B/c Mali, R/o Khema Ka Kuwa, Jodhpur (Raj.) through power of attorney holder Shri Prem Sukh R/o Kheme ka Kuwa, Jodhpur

¶9

----Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Jodhpur.

¶12

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur

¶13

Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr J.L.Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr N.R.Budania

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

¶18

Judgment / Order

¶19

13/03/2018

¶20

This review application is filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer for review of the judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004, Ganpat Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶21

Office has pointed out that the present review

¶22

(2 of 5)

¶23

[WRW-74/2016]

¶24

application is filed with a delay of 636 days. Along with the review application, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is also filed by the applicants with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing the review application.

¶25

An application (APPLW No.4548/2016) was preferred on behalf of the applicants seeking amendment of the review application, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2016.

¶26

In support of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that as a matter of fact, in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004, this Court vide order dated 14.11.2013 directed the Registry to issue notice to appellant - Ganpat Lal through registered post with AD, however, no such notice was ever issued to him pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2013 and without granting any opportunity to the appellant, D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004 was listed for hearing on 25.03.2014 and on that day, the arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved and thereafter vide judgment dated 16.04.2014, the said appeal was dismissed.

¶27

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in the judgment dated 16.04.2014, the Division Bench has wrongly observed that pursuant to the directions given on 14.11.2013, notice of the appellant Nos.1 and 3 received unserved with a remark that despite several efforts, the whereabouts of appellant - Ganpat Lal could not be traced. It is argued that when no such notice was ever issued to Ganpat Lal, there is no question

¶28

(3 of 5)

¶29

[WRW-74/2016]

¶30

of the said notice remained unserved upon Ganpat Lal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the applicants came to know about the judgment dated 16.04.2014 in December 2015 and after obtaining certified copy of the judgment and relevant order-sheets, this review application is filed.

¶32

It is, therefore, prayed on behalf of the applicants that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the review application be condoned.

¶33

It is true that on 14.11.2013, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court ordered for issuance of notice to appellant-Ganpat Lal through registered post, however, from the record, it is not borne out that such notice has ever been issued to Ganpat Lal. It appears that due to inadvertence, in the judgment dated 16.04.2014, it has been observed that the notices sent to Ganpat Lal and others through registered post received unserved with a remark that despite several efforts, the whereabouts of appellantGanpat Lal could not be traced.

¶34

In such circumstances, we are of the view that the applicants have sufficiently explained the delay in filing the review application. Hence, the application (CMCW No.216/2016) under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the present review application is condoned.

¶35

The review application is heard on merits.

¶36

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has failed to consider that the

¶37

(4 of 5)

¶38

[WRW-74/2016]

¶39

Board of Revenue has reversed the judgments of Sub-Divisional officer and the Revenue Appellate Authority on the basis of the land Revenue Receipt, Dhal Banchh and Girdawari entries, however, it has failed to take into consideration that the rights of the appellant are not attracted on the basis of those entries.

¶40

It is also contended that the Board of Revenue has reversed the findings of both the courts below on irrelevant considerations and the said aspect has not been considered by the Division Bench while passing of the judgment dated 16.04.2014.

¶41

Learned counsel for the applicants has also argued that as a matter of fact, the applicants became Khatedars by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and once their Khatedari is established, the said Khatedari land cannot be transferred or acquired.

¶42

It is also contended that so far as the acquisition proceedings are concerned, the entire acquisition proceedings were void as the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have not been followed. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Division Bench while passing the judgment dated 16.04.2014 and therefore, the judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004 is liable to be reviewed.

¶43

After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and after going through the judgment dated 16.04.2014, we are of the opinion that the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicants in support of review application are more or less similar

¶44

(5 of 5)

¶45

[WRW-74/2016]

¶46

to the arguments as raised by learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellants and the same were sufficiently dealt with in the judgment dated 16.04.2014.

¶47

It is also noticed that similar arguments were raised on behalf of the applicants before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge vide detailed judgment dismissed the writ petition on 13.11.2013, which was assailed in the D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004.

¶48

Resultantly, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record and there is no force in this review application. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶49

(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶50

m.asif/PS

Ganpat Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Lal and Ors. 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

Kalu Ram and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Pintu Singh @ Pintu Vs State and Anr.

Vinay Kumar and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Durga Ram Vs State and Ors.

Vikram Charan and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Manga Ram Vs State and Anr.