Allowed

Laxmi Narain v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2023CW/2174/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Board of Revenue judgment that quashed a Revenue Appellate Authority decision. The Court found the Board violated Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by deciding an appeal without addressing all framed issues. The order was quashed, the matter remanded to the Board, and parties directed to appear by January 2024.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Board judgment quashed; the matter remitted to the Board to decide the appeal afresh in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC after hearing both sides.

Laxmi Narain Vs Board of Revenue Ajmer and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:38270]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2174/2002

¶4

Laxmi Narain (Since Deceased) now represented by the following legal representatives:-

¶5

(1) Smt. Kishore Bai – widow of Laxmi Narain

¶6

(2) Mohan Lal S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narain.

¶7

(3) Prabhu Lal S/o Late Shir Laxmi Narain

¶8

(4) Kishan Gopal S/o Late Shir Laxmi Narain

¶9

(5) Manoj Kumar S/o Late Shir Laxmi Narain

¶10

(6) Sushil Kumar S/o Late Shir Laxmi Narain

¶11

All R/o village Rang Talab, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota.

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer through its Registrar.

¶15

Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota.

¶16

Assistant Collector, Kota.

¶17

Chhittar

¶18

Bhairon.

¶19

Respondent No.4 and 5 are sons of Shri Modu Dhakar, R/o Village Rang Talab, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota – through their power of attornery holder Modu Dhakar.

¶20

State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar Ladpura, District Kota.

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Sharma & Ms. Sonal Singh for Mr. Alok Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Kasliwal with Ms. Dolly Sharma and Ms. Gouri Jasana

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶24

Order

¶25

06/12/2023

¶26

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:

(2 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JP:38270]

[CW-2174/2002]

“(I) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment dated 14.03.2002 (Annex-9), passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Appeal No.17/1998 (Chittar Lal & Another v/s. Laxminarain & Another) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 18.12.1997 may kindly be restored.

¶31

(II) Or any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and porper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶32

(III) The costs of the litigation may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.”

¶33

By way of filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 14.03.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’) by which the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1997 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ‘RAA’) has been quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Kota has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-petitioners (hereinafter referred as ‘petitioners’) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred as ‘respondents’) before the Court of Assistant Collector, Kota wherein initially four issues were framed but subsequently additional issues were framed and finally the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed without deciding the additional four issues and the said suit was decided on the basis of the initial four issues only. Counsel submits that in all eight issues were framed, out of which four issues were decided and four were remained undecided vide judgment dated 27.02.1988. Counsel submits that the petitioners submitted an appeal before the RAA and the same

[2023:RJ-JP:38270]

[CW-2174/2002]

(3 of 6)

was allowed vide judgment dated 26.08.1989 and the RAA remanded back the matter to the Additional Collector and directed to decide all the eight issues. Counsel submits that against the said order, the respondents approached the Board by way of filing appeal and the same was allowed on 20.10.1994 and the order passed by the RAA was quashed and set aside and Board directed the RAA to decide the appeal on all the eight issues. Counsel submits that after remand of the matter, the RAA did not make compliance of the directions issued by the Board and rejected the appeal vide judgment dated 22.01.1996. Counsel submits that again the matter travelled to the Board and vide judgment dated 21.11.1996 again the Board remitted the matter back to the RAA to decide all the eight issues. Counsel submits that this time the learned RAA vide judgment dated 18.12.1997 decided all the eight issued and the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and the suit was decreed. Counsel submits that a reasoned cogent finding was recorded by the RAA while deciding the appeal vide judgment dated 18.12.1997. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondent submitted an appeal before the Board but the Board, without following the mandate contained under order 41 Rule 31 CPC and without recording any issue wise finding again quashed and set aside the judgment dated 18.12.1997 passed by the RAA and the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector has been restored vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2002. Counsel submits that the same illegality has been committed by the Board again overlooking its earlier judgments because while restoring the judgment dated 27.02.1988 passed by the Additional Collector, the same mistake

[2023:RJ-JP:38270]

[CW-2174/2002]

(4 of 6)

has been repeated again. Counsel submits that while passing the original judgment dated 18.12.1997 instead of deciding all the eight issues involved, only four issues were decided. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Board for deciding the appeal in terms of the mandate contained under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the Board has not committed any error while passing the judgment dated 14.03.2002 and restoring the original judgment dated 27.02.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Kota. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶43

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that when the petitioner filed the suit for declaration and injunction before the Court of Assistant Collector, Kota, initially on the basis of the pleadings of the parties only four issues were framed but subsequently when crossobjections were submitted and accordingly, four additional issues were framed and in all eight issues were required to be decided by the Assistant Collector but while rejecting the suit filed by the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.1988 only four issues were decided and remaining four issues left undecided and unanswered. Counsel submits that twice the matter travelled upto the Board of Revenue and on each occasion the matter was remitted back to the RAA to decide the appeal by deciding all the

[2023:RJ-JP:38270]

[CW-2174/2002]

(5 of 6)

eight issues involved in the matter. Finally, all the eight issues were decided by the RAA while passing the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1997. It appears that the respondents were aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment dated 18.12.1997 and they approached the Board by way of filing the appeal and this time the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed in contravention of the mandatory provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and without formulating the points for determination and without recording any finding on all the eight issues, the judgment passed by the RAA has been quashed and set aside and the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector has been restored which itself was bad, as all the eight issues were not decided by the Assistant Collector while passing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1988.

¶48

It is worthy to note here that while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.02.1988 only four issues were decided and rest four issues remained unanswered. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Board is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board to decide the appeal afresh in terms of mandate contained under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC after hearing both sides.

¶49

The parties are directed to appear before the Board on 23.01.2024.

¶50

The writ petition stands allowed. Stay application and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

¶51

Since the dispute pertains to the year 1980, looking to the long life spam of the litigation i.e. 44 years, the Board is

[2023:RJ-JP:38270]

[CW-2174/2002]

(6 of 6)

expected to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the appearance of the parties.

¶56

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶57

KuD/23

Laxmi Narain v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Narain v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

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

Dev Vrat Arya and Ors. Vs J D a Jaipur

Ingenious Propcon Guru Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Son of Pooran Singh Vs Rajasthan Para Medical Council

Dayaram S/O Shri Prahalad Vs Tehsildar

Technocraft Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramsahay Son of Shri Shrawan (Since Deceased) Vs Smt. Shyopyari Devi D/O Shri Narayanlal, W/O Late Shri Sanwalram