Allowed

Aasiya W/O Harun v. Israil S/O Abdul

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2021CW/5664/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that the Board of Revenue violated principles of natural justice by setting aside a Divisional Commissioner's interim order without issuing notice to the petitioner. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Commissioner to decide the pending appeal within three months while maintaining the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 24.11.2020 and 04.03.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue are quashed and set aside; the Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal within three months.

Aasiya W/O Harun Vs Israil S/O Abdul — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5664/2021

¶4

Aasiya W/o Harun, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Kethwara, Tehsil Pahari, District Bharatpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Israil S/o Abdul, R/o Kethwara, Tehsil Pahari, District Bharatpur.

¶8

Reshmi W/o Navi Kha, R/o Ghagwari, Tehsil Pahari, District Bharatpur.

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Pahari, District Bharatpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA JUDGMENT

¶13

04/10/2021

¶14

Petitioner has preferred present writ petition against the order dated 04.03.2021, passed by learned Member of the Board of Revenue in the application (for recalling the order dated 24.11.2020) filed by the petitioner-Aasiya.

¶15

The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act, in which the Divisional Commissioner has passed an interim order dated 14.03.2019 and directed the respondents to maintain status quo in relation to revenue record and status of land.

¶16

Against the order aforesaid, the respondent No.1 herein preferred a revision petition, that too after about 18 months.

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-5664/2021]

¶19

The learned Member of the Board of Revenue has passed order dated 24.11.2020 and set aside the interim order dated 14.03.2019 of the Divisional Commissioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is per se illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside solely on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice.

¶21

Elaborating his argument further, he submitted that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has on the very first date of hearing, allowed the respondent’s revision petition, without even condoning the delay of about 18 months and hearing the petitioner. He argued that the interim order dated 14.03.2019, which was in currency in the appeal filed by the petitioner, has been annulled even without issuing any notice.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order argued that the Divisional Commissioner, who was required to dispose of the appeal within a period of 30 days has failed to decide the appeal and thus, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the interim order granted on 14.03.2019. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material available on record, this Court is shocked to find that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has set aside an order without even issuing notice to the petitioner. 9. Indisputedly, the revision came to be filed by respondentIsrail before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 14.03.2019, in the year 2020 (about 18 months of the interim order). The revision aforesaid filed by the respondent No.1 was not accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and regardless of this, the Member of Board of

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-5664/2021]

¶25

Revenue has proceeded to allow the revision at the first stage, without even issuing any notice to the present petitioner.

¶26

In the opinion of this Court, the approach adopted by the Board of Revenue is unknown to law. Before setting aside an order passed in petitioner’s favour, the Board of Revenue was at least required to hear him by way of issuing notice.

¶27

It is pertinent to mention that the present petitioner has preferred an application under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order dated 24.11.2020 and to his dismay, even such application has been dismissed by the learned Member of Board of Revenue.

¶28

The reasons given by the learned Member Board of Revenue, in his order dated 04.03.2021 are absolutely irrelevant; unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned Member has taken recourse to provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 3A of the Code, but the same only gives a right to an aggrieved party to prefer an appeal. But merely because an appeal has been provided by the Code, it cannot be said that a revision is maintainable and that too such revision can be allowed without hearing the party, in whose favour an injunction has been granted.

¶29

While rejecting petitioner’s application for recalling the order, the Board of Revenue has also observed that the appellant (present petitioner) will be free to agitate her cause before the Divisional Commissioner in her pending appeal. The fact that the petitioner will have a right to agitage her cause, does not mean that an ad interim injunction granted in favour can be set aside, while giving the principles of natural justice a go by.

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CW-5664/2021]

¶32

In view of the discussion aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.11.2020, so also order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶33

The Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months from today. Till disposal of the appeal, the interim order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in petitioner’s appeal shall continue.

¶34

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶35

RAHUL-304

Aasiya W/O Harun v. Israil S/O Abdul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aasiya W/O Harun v. Israil S/O Abdul

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

Jyoti Vs the State of Rajasthan

Modal Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Amarchand Son of Manohar Vs Mohanlal Son of Late Durgalal Sharma

Bhankrota Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs Harinarayan

Parvez Raza S/O Shri Ali Raza Vs District Collector

Smt. Sangeeta Khatri Wife of Shri Anil Kumar Khatri Vs Punjab National Bank