The High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the rejection of his interim injunction application under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue, finding no illegality in not hearing the opposing private respondents.
The writ petition and the stay petition were dismissed.
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 AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7035/2022
Veeraram S/o Joitaram, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Rebari, R/o Village Somta, Tehsil Bhinmal, Distt. Jalore At Present Chandna, Tehsil Bhinmal, Distt. Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devkinandan Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Order
21/09/2022
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ‘the BoR’), whereby the Revision Petition No.2396/2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.
By way of the above-referred revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali (for short ‘the RAA’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner in the appeal for granting
(2 of 3)
[CW-7035/2022]
interim stay has been rejected. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalore (for short ‘the SDO’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and eviction under Section 88, 183 and 188 of the Act of 1955 claiming that the disputed land was recorded in the name of his grandfather, however, in the year 1979, the Tehsildar has illegally recorded the land in question in the name of the State without there being any order. It is claimed that later on, the State has allotted the said land to the private respondents. The petitioner has claimed before the SDO that a declaration may be issued to the effect that the petitioner is the khatedar of the land in question and a decree of eviction be passed while evicting the private respondents from the land in question.
Alongwith the said suit, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 with a prayer for granting temporary injunction, however, the SDO vide order dated 22.01.2018 has rejected the said application while observing that the land was allotted in the name of the private respondents in the year 2002 and, thereafter, the same was also converted for residential purposes and some construction work is going on. It is observed by the SDO that since the petitioner is not the khatedar of the land in question, no case for grant of temporary injunction is made out.
(3 of 3)
[CW-7035/2022]
Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the SDO, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the RAA and in that appeal, he has moved an application for grant of interim injunction, however, the RAA has rejected the said application seeking interim injunction while observing that the disputed land is recorded in the name of the private respondents and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to pass any interim injunction order without providing any opportunity of hearing to them. Thereafter, the next date in the matter was fixed as 17.4.2018.
Against the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the RAA, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the BoR, which was dismissed by the BoR vide order dated 31.03.2022.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record as well as the impugned order passed by the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the RAA has not committed any illegality in not granting any interim stay without hearing the private persons, who are khatedars of the land as per the revenue record. The BoR has also not committed any illegality in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 31.03.2022.
Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition is also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
4-mohit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Appellate Authority committed any illegality in rejecting the interim stay application without hearing the private respondents who are khatedars of the land.
Whether the Board of Revenue committed any illegality in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Veeraram S/o Joitaram
Pratap Khan S/o Babu Khan
Jabar Khan S/o Babu Khan
Naseer Khan S/o Babu Khan
Madan Khan S/o Babu Khan
Sumer Singh S/o Hem Singh
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
