Dismissed

Jaimal Ram v. Mangi Lal

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2022CW/281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Board of Revenue's rejection of his stay application in a second appeal concerning land partition. The High Court held that the Bench could adjudicate on the merits of the appeal and that blocking an existing way via an interim order is impermissible. Thus, the writ petition failed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the stay petition were dismissed. The stand of the Board was upheld.

Jaimal Ram Vs Mangi Lal — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 281/2022

¶4

Jaimal Ram S/o Ganeshram Jat, Aged About 84 Years, B/c Jat, Resident Of Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mangi Lal S/o Sahiram, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶8

Bheemsen S/o Sahiram, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶9

Harchand S/o Saduram, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶10

Ramrakh S/o Sardara, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶11

Devi Lal S/o Sardara, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶12

Balwant S/o Sardara, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶13

Krishna S/o Balwant, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶14

Mahendra S/o Balwant, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶15

Sultan S/o Ganeshram, B/c Jat, R/o Dablivas Pema, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Hanumangarh)

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Shrimali through V.C.

¶19

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶20

Order

¶21

11/01/2022

¶22

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.11.2021, passed by the learned

¶23

(2 of 3)

¶24

[CW-281/2022]

¶25

Members of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), whereby petitioner’s stay application has been rejected.

¶26

Brief facts relevant for the present purposes are that a preliminary decree came to be passed on the basis of compromise entered into between the present petitioner and the respondents, being joint Khatedars.

¶27

When the final decree was passed by the trial Court, a way has been provided through petitioner’s share in the land, which according to the petitioner was neither part of the compromise nor was the petitioner heard on this aspect.

¶28

The said final decree came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was rejected vide order dated 23.09.2021. Against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 23.09.2021, the petitioner filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue along with stay application.

¶29

Petitioner’s stay application has been rejected by the learned Members of the Board vide order dated 10.11.2021. 6. Mr. Hemant Shrimali, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court was not justified in providing the way from petitioner’s share and if the way was required to be provided, the same ought to have been provided from the land of all the joint Khatedars and the area or part of the land which has gone towards the road, ought to have been proportionally reduced from shares of all the joint Khatedars .

¶30

The arguments advanced by Mr. Shrimali may be correct, but, however, the same is required to be gone into by the Board while deciding the appeal finally before it.

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

[CW-281/2022]

¶33

Once a way has been provided and the same is being used by the joint Khatedars , it should not be and cannot be blocked by way of interim order.

¶34

If the petitioner’s appeal is allowed, appropriate order in accordance with law would naturally be passed.

¶35

In this view of the matter, this Court does not find it to be a case warranting interference under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

The writ petition therefore fails.

¶37

Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶38

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶39

43-Ramesh/-

Jaimal Ram v. Mangi Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaimal Ram v. Mangi Lal

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

Jitendra Vishnoi Vs National Medical Commission

Bheru Singh Vs Union of India

Ladhuram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Prasad Vs District Collector, Jodhpur

M/S. Poonam Coal Traders Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Mahakali Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan