Disposed

Nasirudeen @ Bashir S/O Kamrudeen Khan v. Hasina Bano @ Falki W/O Late Islamudeen

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2025CW/5372/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that entertaining a time-barred petition without first deciding the accompanying application for condonation of delay is a violation of settled legal principles. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the Board of Revenue to first decide the condonation application before entertaining the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Board of Revenue to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act first, before entertaining the revision petition.

Nasirudeen @ Bashir S/O Kamrudeen Khan Vs Hasina Bano… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:24987]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5376/2025

¶4

Sadik S/o Late Gulab Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. At Present, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶5

Mustak Ali S/o Late Gulab Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. At Present R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶6

Rajjak S/o Late Gulab Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. At Present, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶7

Fajaludeen S/o Late Gulab Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. At Present R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶8

Sarrajudeen S/o Late Gulab Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. At Present, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Hasina Bano @ Falki W/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶12

Imran S/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶13

Irfan S/o Late Islamuddin, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶14

Mumtaj D/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶15

Jakir S/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶16

Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶17

Sugra Bano W/o Late Gulab Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. At Present, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶18

Waffatudeen S/o Late Gulab Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. At Present, R/o Gram Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Respondents

(2 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:24987]

[CW-5376/2025]

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5372/2025

¶25

Nasirudeen @ Bashir S/o Kamrudeen Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶26

Abdul Gafur @ Khaju Khan S/o Kamrudeen Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶27

Abdul Shakur @ Ganga S/o Kamrudeen Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶28

Imamudeen Kureshi @ Jamil Khan S/o Kamrudeen Khan, R/o Gram Ganwadi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶29

----Petitioners

¶30

Versus

¶31

Hasina Bano @ Falki W/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, Distrit Sikar (Raj.)

¶32

Imran S/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶33

Irfan S/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶34

Mumtaj D/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶35

Jakir S/o Late Islamudeen, R/o Gadbhopji, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶36

----Respondents

¶37

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Mohammed Anees
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Vikash Kumar Jakhar

¶38

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶39

Order

¶40

07/07/2025

¶41

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) by which an interim order has been passed whereby the operation of the order dated

[2025:RJ-JP:24987]

[CW-5376/2025]

(3 of 5)

01.03.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”) has been stayed.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2012 passed by the SDO, Neemkathana, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 01.03.2016 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Counsel submits that a time barred revision petition, after a lapse of around three years, was submitted by the respondents against the aforesaid order before the Board alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Counsel submits that the time barred revision petition has been entertained, without deciding the application submitted by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and without condoning the delay, the order impugned has been passed, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submits that the revision petition is still sub judice before the Board and the revision petition has not been decided finally yet and the operation of the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the RAA has not been stayed for an indefinite period, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶48

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

¶49

Perusal of the aforesaid referred orders indicate that a temporary injunction application was submitted by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the same was rejected by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 23.02.2012

[2025:RJ-JP:24987]

[CW-5376/2025]

(4 of 5)

against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioners and during pendency of the said appeal, an interim order was passed by the RAA vide order dated 01.03.2016, directing the parties to maintain status quo.

¶54

It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the respondents before the Board, after a lapse of around three years along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. It appears that without deciding the said application, the impugned order has been passed.

¶55

It is settled proposition of law that whenever any time barred petition is preferred, it is the bounden duty of the Court concerned to first hear and decide the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after passing appropriate orders on the said application, the petition filed by the aggrieved parties should be entertained, but herein the instant case, without deciding the said application on its merits, straightaway the order impugned has been passed.

¶56

Since, the matter is still sub judice before the Board, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with direction to the Board to first decide the application submitted by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and then, only the revision petition submitted by the respondents should be entertained.

¶57

Needless to observe, the present order passed by this Court would be complied with by the Board expeditiously as early as possible not beyond the period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

[2025:RJ-JP:24987]

[CW-5376/2025]

(5 of 5)

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

¶62

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶63

Aayush Sharma /31-32

Nasirudeen @ Bashir S/O Kamrudeen Khan v. Hasina Bano @ Falki W/O Late Islamudeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasirudeen @ Bashir S/O Kamrudeen Khan v. Hasina Bano @ Falki W/O Late Islamudeen

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

M/S Shyam Minerals Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Pathak Son of Shri Raj Narayan Pathak Vs State of Rajasthan

Badan Singh and Ors. Vs the District Collector and Ors.

Accil Corporation Private Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India

Kesar Lal Son of Shri Nihal Chand Vs Bhuvnesh Soni Son of Shri Daulatram

Vipin Goyal Vs Gyan Chand Jain (Deceased)