This intra-court appeal dismissed a challenge to the rejection of a review petition. The High Court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision, holding that reopening concluded proceedings via review to raise a fresh caste-based claim was mala fide and barred.
Special appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 851/2018
Ram Singh S/o Motu, By Caste Gawariya, Resident Of Devpura, Tehsil Bundi, District Bundi (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment
9 th January, 2020
Per Hon’ble Mr. Sangeet Lodha,J.
(2 of 7)
[SAW-851/2018]
legality of compromise decree dated 19.4.2001 and order dated 8.11.2017 dismissing the review petition seeking review of order dated 19.4.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue, has been dismissed.
(3 of 7)
[SAW-851/2018]
Smt. Mooli, the appellant herein was substituted as respondent in the appeal. The appellant entered into compromise with the respondents relinquishing his claim over the disputed land and preferred an application for setting aside the decree dated 25.3.1997 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and prayed for entering the disputed land in the revenue record in the names of the respondents. The appeal preferred by the respondents was accordingly disposed of by the Revenue Board in terms of the compromise arrived at vide order dated 19.4.2001. The decree under the appeal was set aside and the respondents were declared khatedar tenant of the disputed land.
(4 of 7)
[SAW-851/2018]
have raised the objection in this regard before the trial Court, the Appellate Court or the Board of Revenue at the appropriate stage. The Board opined that in absence of any error apparent on the face of record, the application preferred seeking review of the compromise decree cannot be entertained.
(5 of 7)
[SAW-851/2018]
Revenue cannot be reopened by way of review petition on the basis of altogether new facts set out in the review petition, filed after a lapse of 14 years. Learned counsel submitted that the original plaintiffs and the appellant have consistently disclosed their caste as ‘ banjara ganwaria’ before the trial Court, Appellate Court and Board of Revenue at different stages of the proceedings and thus, the stand sought to be taken at this belated stage that the original plaintiffs and the appellant herein belong to a different caste which falls within the category of Scheduled Caste, has rightly not been countenanced by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel submitted that the attempt of the appellant in taking a false stand so as to wriggle out from the compromise decree, is absolutely mala fide and therefore, the special appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
(6 of 7)
[SAW-851/2018]
of their father, the khatedar tenant of the land, was found proved and the respondents herein were found to be in unauthorised occupation of the disputed land.
(7 of 7)
[SAW-851/2018]
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
(SANGEET LODHA),J
ADITYA JOSHI /
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed after 14 years raising a new issue regarding caste to avoid a compromise decree is maintainable.
Whether the dismissal of the review petition by the Board of Revenue was erroneous in holding the appellant's claim mala fide.
Ram Singh S/o Motu
Jagdish S/o Gyarsa
Roop Chand S/o Gyarsa
Mst. Nathi Bai D/o Gyarsa
Mst. Dhuli D/o Gyarsa
Mst. Dhapu D/o Gyarsa
Sangeet Lodha
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
