Dismissed

Gopi Ram v. Board of Revenue

Rajasthan HC24 Jul 2019CW/3488/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order appointing a Receiver on disputed land, the single-bench High Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 as no prejudice was found. While dismissing the petition, the Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the pending suit within six months pending since 2003.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Suratgarh to decide the pending suit within six months; writ petition otherwise dismissed.

Gopi Ram Vs Board of Revenue — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3488/2019

¶4

Gopi Ram S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of Village Dhaba Jhalar Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.

¶8

Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar.

¶9

Sub Divisional Officer, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶10

Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Ganganagar.

¶11

Mangi Lal S/o Gopi Ram, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of 18 Lgw, Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R. Godara For Respondent(s) :

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

24/07/2019

¶17

The present writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.12.2017, passed by learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan (Ajmer), whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed whereas the revision petition filed by Mangi Lal, petitioner’s son (respondent No.5 herein) has been rejected.

¶18

Succinctly stated, the facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner’s son Mangi Lal (respondent No.5 herein) filed a suit under Sections 88 and 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, interalia,

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-3488/2019]

¶21

alleging that the his father (present petitioner) has gifted 8 Bighas of agriculture land to his daughter, out of the ancestral land. As no partition was made, the same could not have been gifted, was the case of the petitioner. During the course of proceedings, the Trial Court appointed a Receiver in respect of the disputed 8 Bigha (2.530 Hectare) land.

¶22

The petitioner preferred an appeal against the appointment of Receiver, the appellate Authority partly allowed the present petitioner’s appeal and confined the appointment of Receiver qua 4.385 Bighas land - 1.0120 Hectare.

¶23

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which came to be allowed vide its order dated 06.12.2017.

¶24

By way of the order impugned, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer while allowing the appeal, set aside the order qua appointment of Receiver, however directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Suratgarh to determine approximate annual contract amount and directed the petitioner to furnish equivalent cash security qua such amount.

¶25

Mr. S.R. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioner calling the order dated 06.12.2017, passed by the Revenue Court, in question, argued that the authorities below have committed error of law in appointing Receiver, inasmuch as, the land in question was petitioner’s self acquired land and not an ancestral one.

¶26

He further submitted that though, the learned Board of Revenue has set aside the appointment of Receiver, yet the order impugned cannot be said to be just and proper in the facts of the present case, as furnishing cash security is a harsh and confiscatory condition.

¶27

(3 of 3) [CW-3488/2019]

¶28

He argued that the petitioner is required to furnish cash security with respect to his own land, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon considering the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the same is not prejudicial to petitioner’s right. He is simply required to furnish cash security equal to the approximate annual rental income, which can accrue from 1.0120 Hectare land. The petitioner is not required to pay any thing during the period of the suit. Any finding with respect to the fact that the land is ancestral or self acquired, will prejudice rights of the rival parties.

¶30

The writ petition is thus dismissed.

¶31

However, looking to the fact that the suit is pending since 2003, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Suratagarh to decide the suit in the matter of Mangi Lal Vs. Gopi Ram expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today.

¶32

The Stay Petition No.3374/2019 also stands disposed of.

¶33

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶34

6-Ramesh/-

Gopi Ram v. Board of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Ram v. Board of Revenue

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

Gopi Chand Vs Bhanwar Lal and Anr.

Lrs of Ibrahim and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Lrs of Sanjay Gothwal Vs Smt. Pratibha Agarwal

Ghana Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Malgarh Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Rasid Lime Company, Borunda Vs Union of India