Disposed

Gokul Chand Soni v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2025CW/16816/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A former Sarpanch sought impleadment in a pending Board of Revenue appeal concerning cancellation of 1970 agricultural land allotments made to respondents under the Rules of 1970. The court held he was neither necessary nor proper party but, deprecating the appeal's pendency for over 17 years as violative of Article 21 speedy-disposal rights, directed the Board to decide it within two months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gokul Chand Soni Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:26498]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16816/2010

¶4

Gokul Chand Soni S/o Sh. Sohan Lal Soni, aged 74 years, R/o Village Tamkaur, Tehsil & District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through District Collector, Jhunjhunu. 2. Gram Panchayat Village Tamkaur, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu.

¶8

Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, through its Registrar. 4. Ram Karan S/o Jaidev Singh, R/o Village Tamkaur, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu.

¶9

Gulab S/o Mangla Ram R/o Village Tamkaur, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Mr.Amit Kumar Soni
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.Gunjan Chawla for
	Mr.Neeraj Batra, GC
	Mr.Hanuman Choudhary

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

16/07/2025

¶15

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶16

“Therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon. Court may kindly accept the writ petition and by appropriate writ, order or direction,

¶17

(i) Set aside the Allotment Order dated 03.12.1970 (Annex.-1)

¶18

(ii) Set aside Order dated 19.02.2008 (Annex.9) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar.

(2 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:26498]

[CW-16816/2010]

(iii) Set aside the Order dated 23.03.2010 (Annex.-12), Order dated 07.07.2010 (Annex.13) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

¶23

(iv) Direct the Respondent No.1 State to keep the land in dispute from any encroachment,

¶24

(v) Direct the Respondent No.1 to ensure that land in dispute should be used for public purposes of the Villagers.

¶25

(vi) Any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction which may be considered just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.

¶26

(vii) Cost of litigation may be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.”

¶27

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the allotment order dated 03.12.1970 and the order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the committee and the Revenue Appellate Authority respectively and the orders dated 23.03.2010 and 07.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were not landless persons and even then, the subject land was allotted to them, contrary to the Rules of 1970 and this fact was appreciated by the District Collector, Jhunjhunu. An application under Section 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, “the Rules of 1970”) was submitted by the State through Tehsildar, Jhunjhunu and the said application was allowed vide judgment dated 27.06.2006 and the allotment order dated 03.12.1970 was quashed. Counsel submits that against the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar (for short, “the RAA”) who allowed the same and quashed the order passed by the Collector

[2025:RJ-JP:26498]

[CW-16816/2010]

(3 of 6)

vide judgment dated 19.02.2008 against which the State has submitted revision petition/ second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the same is pending for its adjudication. Counsel submits that an application was submitted by the petitioner being Ex-Sarpanch for his impleadment before the RAA, however, the same was rejected, against which the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Board, but the said application was withdrawn by the newly elected Sarpanch of the Panchayat. Counsel submits that since the allotment was made during the tenure of the petitioner, hence, he was a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the array of cause-title before the Board where the appeal is still lying pending.

¶33

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to participate in the proceedings related to allotment or rejection of the patta in favour of the respondents. Counsel submits that now, the matter is still sub judice before the Board for perusing the correctness of the orders passed by the RAA and the proceedings have been initiated by the State, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to intervene in the matter as the matter is between the State and the respondents. Thereafter, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶34

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶35

Perusal of the record indicates that certain allotments were made in favour of the respondents in the year 1970 which were assailed by the State, by way of filing an application under Section

(4 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:26498]

[CW-16816/2010]

14(4) of the Rules of 1970 before the District Collector and the said application was allowed and the allotment order issued in favour of the respondents was quashed vide order dated 26.03.2002.

¶40

The respondents assailed the aforesaid order before the RAA, by way of filing an appeal and the appeal was allowed vide judgement dated 17.06.2003 and the order passed by the Collector was set aside.

¶41

Against the judgment dated 17.06.2003, the State has preferred an appeal and the same was partly allowed on 06.07.2005 and the order passed by the RAA was quashed and the matter was remitted to the District Collector for fresh adjudication, after getting the report from the SDO. The collector re-examined the matter and allotment order dated 03.12.1970 was again cancelled vide order dated 27.06.2006.

¶42

Against the order dated 27.06.2006, an appeal was submitted by the respondents before the RAA and the RAA vide its order dated 19.02.2008 quashed the Collector’s order dated 27.06.2006.

¶43

Now, the Panchayat has submitted a revision petition before the Board, wherein an interim order has been passed on 26.02.2008 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Subsequently, the Panchayat withdraw the above appeal on 23.03.2010. The State has also submitted an appeal against the RAA’s order dated 19.02.2008, before the Board and the same is pending before the Board since last 17 years.

¶44

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to intervene in the matter

[2025:RJ-JP:26498]

[CW-16816/2010]

(5 of 6)

and it is a matter between the State and the respondents, hence, this Court finds no error in the order passed by the board, denying him to participate in the proceedings. But, looking to the fact that the appeal is lying pending before the Board since 2008, i.e., for more than 17 years.

¶49

It is quite shocking and surprising that appeals are lying pending before the Board for almost two decades now, the Appellate Authority is not expected to keep the matters pending for an indefinite time. Time and again, this Court has deprecated such practice of the Authorities for keeping the matters pending for an indefinite time. The Appellate Authorities are expected to decide the pending matters in a reasonable time, but herein the instant case, the Appellate Authority is sleeping over the matter since last more than 17 years. Such practice of the Appellate Authorities cannot be allowed to sustain and is liable to be deprecated by this Court.

¶50

The right of speedy and expeditious disposal of the case is one of the most valuable and cherished right of a litigant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, enshrined under Article 21. 14. Keeping in view all facts and circumstances, the Board is directed to decide the pending appeal, expeditiously as early as possible not beyond the period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶51

It goes without saying that if the order passed by this Court is not complied with by the Board within the above stipulated time, then it would be viewed seriously.

[2025:RJ-JP:26498]

[CW-16816/2010]

(6 of 6)

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶56

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶57

Aayush Sharma /62

Gokul Chand Soni v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gokul Chand Soni v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljeet Singh S/O Late Shri Ram Chandra Vs Branch Manager, Yes Bank Ltd.

Aayush Gupta Son of Manoj Gupta Vs Smt. Gopali Devi Daughter of Shri Ram Niwas Wife of Shri Damodar Prasad

Kirti Gupta S/O Manoj Gupta Vs Smt. Gopali Devi D/O Shri Ram Niwas W/O Shri Damodar Prasad

Prarikshit Goswami Vs University of Raj Andors

Babu Lal Vs Smt Nand Devi andORS

Manish Gupta S/O Shri Bal Kishan Gupta Vs Beawar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.