Quashed

Shrinarayan S/O Bhorilal v. Hazari S/O Chanda

Rajasthan HC23 Sept 2024CW/4807/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged an order setting aside partition decrees due to non-impleadment of a co-tenant. Court found no miscarriage of justice as share was separated and co-tenant never objected, further noting parties may have settled.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.12.2020 set aside; writ petition disposed of.

Shrinarayan S/O Bhorilal Vs Hazari S/O Chanda — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:40430]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4807/2021

¶4

Shrinarayan S/o Bhorilal, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Village Nayawaas, Tehsil Ramgad Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶5

Lohdya S/o Bhorilal, Resident Of Village Nayawaas, Tehsil Ramgad Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶6

Kanju @ Kallu S/o Rampal, Resident Of Village Nayawaas, Tehsil Ramgad Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Hazari S/o Chanda, Resident Of Village Nayawaas, Tehsil Ramgad Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶10

Kanta S/o Chanda, Resident Of Village Nayawaas, Tehsil Ramgad Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶11

State Of Raj, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Ramgad Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶15

Order

¶16

23/09/2024

¶17

On behalf of respondent No.3, learned Government Counsel has put in appearance.

¶18

With consent of counsel for both parties, the writ petition has been heard finally on merits.

¶19

In instant writ petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal Decree No.1764/2019, remanding the suit for partition, merely on the ground that one of the co-tenant namely Kalyan S/o Bhoriya, was not made party to the partition suit.

[2024:RJ-JP:40430]

[CW-4807/2021]

(2 of 3)

Counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs pointed out that nonimpleadment of Kalyan in the revenue suit, has not resulted into any injustice, since while dividing the land in question, share of Kalyan, as per revenue record, was duly separated. He submits that Kalyan never objected in this respect, but respondentsdefendants, just in order to delay the proceedings, raised such irregularity without challenging the preliminary decree for partition. He submits that preliminary decree for partition dated 08.07.2015 had attained finality and in pursuance thereof, final decree for partition has also been passed on 29.09.2015, as much as same has been affirmed in the appeal by Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 29.03.2019. The contention of counsel for petitioners is that in such backdrop of factual matrix, the Board of Revenue committed illegality as much as perversity in setting aside the preliminary as well as final decree and has given an extraneous way to the irregularity in respect of nonimpleding the khatedar Kalyan. Otherwise, in the facts as obtaining in the present case, non-impleadment of Kalyan does not lead to any miscarriage of justice.

¶24

In addition to above, counsel for petitioners also contends that share of Kalyan has been purchased by the petitionersplaintiffs and in that view also his non-impleadment does not lead to any failure of justice.

¶25

Counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 has supported the impugned order.

¶26

During course of arguments, counsel for petitioners states that he has received an information from reliable sources that parties have mutually settled their dispute of partition. Counsel for

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:40430]

[CW-4807/2021]

respondent No.1 & 2 is not in a position to controvert such contention.

¶31

In view of above, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue becomes non est. Otherwise also, having considered the contentions made by counsel for petitioners on merits, the order impugned is not liable to be sustained in the eye of law, hence set aside.

¶32

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶34

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶35

Sachin/Ronak/58

Shrinarayan S/O Bhorilal v. Hazari S/O Chanda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrinarayan S/O Bhorilal v. Hazari S/O Chanda

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

Mohan Singh Son of Shri Babudan Singh Alias Pabudan Singh (Deleted) Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Surendra Singh Gurjar Son of Shri Man Singh Gurjar Vs the National Institute of Ayurved

Vikram Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Bajrang Singh Shekawat Vs State of Rajasthan

District Cricket Association, Dholpur Vs Municipal Council, Dholpur

Manoj Sainy S/O Bhanwarlal Vs Mahesh Kumar S/O Puranmal

Manoj Kumar Dixit S/O Shri Ramdayal Sharma Vs the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board