Respondent appellants filed a special appeal against an order conceding 168 days of delay. The High Court noted the impugned order was already complied with. Dismissing the limitation application and the appeal.
The application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the special appeal are both 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:1811-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 445/2023
Municipal Council Pali, Through Its Commissioner Municipal Council, Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Paramveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order
11/01/2024
The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 168 days is filing the present appeal.
Reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the prayer condoning the delay in filing the appeal is opposed. However, it is also mentioned in the reply to the aforesaid application that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.05.2022 has already been complied with and the land of Khasra Nos.675/3 & 677 of village Patwra, Halka, Pali is already recorded as nonagricultural land in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner.
[2024:RJ-JD:1811-DB]
[SAW-445/2023]
(2 of 2)
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Collector concerned has made a reference to the Board of Revenue complaining about conversation of the above-referred land in favour of the respondents, however, the said reference came to be rejected by the Board of Revenue and the writ petition challenging the order of Board of Revenue is pending consideration before this Court. It is further submitted that any order is passed on merits in this appeal may adversely affect the merits of writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Board of Revenue.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has already been complied with, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter, however, it is expected that the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Board of Revenue, whereby the Board of Revenue has dismissed the reference would be decided on its merit irrespective of disposal of the present appeal.
In view of the above, the present appeal as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred on behalf of the appellant against the impugned order are disposed of.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
28-Arun/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considering the impugned order has been complied with.
Whether disposal of the present appeal would adversely affect the pending writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Municipal Council Pali, Through Its Commissioner Municipal Council, Pali
State Of Rajasthan
Dilip Singh
Uda Ram
Vijay Bishnoi
Rajendra Prakash Soni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
