Dismissed

Rameshwari Devi v. Board of Revenue

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2024CW/13159/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a fresh site inspection application. The Court held the inspection report is corroborative evidence, proceedings are pending, and the cited precedent is irrelevant.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and stay application dismissed as the proceedings under Section 251-A are pending and the cited precedent is inapplicable.

Rameshwari Devi Vs Board of Revenue — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:35666]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13159/2024

¶4

Rameshwari Devi W/o Gokul Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer, Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶10

Abhishek S/o Ramratan, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶11

Bhanwari D/o Mana Ram, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶12

Mimi Devi W/o Late Shri Mana Ram, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶13

Ramchandra S/o Mana Ram, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶14

Vasundra D/o Ramratan, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶15

Shanti D/o Mana Ram, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶16

Shanti W/o Ramratan, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶17

Sharda D/o Mana Ram, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶18

Shiv Lal S/o Mana Ram, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶19

Soma D/o Mana Ram, R/o Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶20

Punjab National Bank, Branch Nokha, Through Branch Manager, Nokha, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

----Respondents

[2024:RJ-JD:35666]

[CW-13159/2024]

(2 of 4)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. DD Chittalangi

¶26

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶27

Order

¶28

29/08/2024

¶29

The grievance for which the petitioner has approached this Court is that the Tehsildar/Revenue Inspector have prepared a Naksha Mouka report in absence of the petitioner so also the respondents.

¶30

The facts appertain are that the respondent Nos.4 to 13 have moved an application under section 251-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’), for providing new way from the petitioner’s agriculture field.

¶31

In furtherance of the application so filed, the Tehsildar/Revenue Inspector prepared a site inspection report dated 19.07.2023, during which neither the petitioner nor the private respondents were present.

¶32

During the course of proceedings, the petitioner filed an application to the effect that a fresh ‘ Naksha Mauka’ report be prepared in presence of the petitioner. Said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Nokha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) by way of order dated 28.06.2024.

[2024:RJ-JD:35666]

[CW-13159/2024]

(3 of 4)

Feeling aggrieved of rejection of such application, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which has been rejected by the order dated 26.07.2024.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was incumbent upon the Tehsildar/Revenue Inspector to conduct site inspection in presence of both the parties and therefore, the report is vitiated. He prayed that a direction be issued to the Tehsildar to conduct a fresh site inspection in presence of the petitioner.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner read the provisions of section 251-A of the Act and Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (in short ‘the Rules’), to support his contention that it was necessary for the Tehsildar to conduct site inspection in presence of the parties concern.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶40

It may be noted that none of the provision referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner provides for issuance of the notice to the parties, when the site inspection is conducted.

¶41

According to this Court, site inspection report is not conclusive and is a corroborative piece of evidence and application filed under section 251-A of the Act is required to be decided on the basis of rival contention and evidence.

¶42

Indisputably, the petitioner has filed his objection in relation to application filed by the respondents under section 251-A of the Act. The petitioner is only entitled to file objection qua the report so also in relation to the application under section 251-A of the Act, which he has done.

[2024:RJ-JD:35666]

[CW-13159/2024]

(4 of 4)

The proceedings of section 251-A have not yet been finalised.

¶47

The petitioner has not only challenged such interlocutory order by way of revision before the Board of Revenue but has come all the way to the High Court, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶48

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bagh Singh vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12386/2015) reported in (2016) 1 WLC (UC) 338 .

¶49

This Court hastens to record that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely irrelevant. The application filed by the respondents under section 251-A of the Act is still pending. The adjudication made in the case of Bagh Singh (supra) may be relevant for the purpose of deciding the application filed under section 251-A of the Act finally, but not relevant for the present controversy wherein, the basic issue is whether the petitioner’s application for conducting a fresh site inspection has been rightly rejected.

¶50

The present writ petition being frivolous, is hereby dismissed.

¶51

Stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶52

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶53

337-raksha/-

Rameshwari Devi v. Board of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwari Devi v. Board of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durga Ram Vs Union of India

Dristhikendra Sms Hospital Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Santosh Vs Pardeep Kumar Dhard

Deva Ram Vs State of Rajasthan