Disposed

Rajaram Son of Shri Ramchandra v. Ramsahai Son of Shri Harinarayan

Rajasthan HC14 May 2025CW/7442/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Board of Revenue's order confirming the First Appellate Court's decision condoning a delay of 11 years in filing an appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Court found no error in the impugned order, noting that disputed questions of fact required adjudication by the Appellate Court on the basis of evidence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajaram Son of Shri Ramchandra Vs Ramsahai Son of Shri… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:20270]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7442/2025

¶4

Rajaram Son Of Shri Ramchandra, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶5

Ramesh Son Of Shri Ramchandra, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶6

Shivji Lal Son Of Shri Gangabishan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ramsahai Son Of Shri Harinarayan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶10

Badri Son Of Shri Harinarayan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶11

Ramrai Son Of Shri Harinarayan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶12

Rameshwar Son Of Shri Harinarayan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶13

Prabhu Son Of Shri Harinarayan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶14

Mathura Daughter Of Shri Harinarayan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶15

Sita Daughter Of Shri Harinarayan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶16

Madee Daughter Of Shri Harinarayan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶17

Shanti Daughter Of Shri Gangabishan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶18

Nathu Son Of Shri Ramchandra, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶19

Mishrilal Son Of Shri Ramchandra, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶20

Galol Daughter Of Shri Ramchandra, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶21

Santra Daughter Of Shri Ramchandra, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:20270]

[CW-7442/2025]

Gulab Daughter Of Shri Ramchandra, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶26

Kailash Son Of Shri Gangabishan, Resident Of Village Bhairupura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶27

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Deepak Sharma with
	Mr.Ashish Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Dinesh Pareek

¶30

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶31

Order

¶32

14/05/2025

¶33

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the District Collector, Tonk has been rejected.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a mutual partition took place between the parties in the campaign of Prashashan Gaon Ke Sang in the year 2010, wherein the petitioner as well as the respondents and all the parties were present while endorsing their signatures. Counsel submits that after a lapse of more than 11 years, the respondents assailed the proceedings of the aforesaid campaign before the Court of District Collector, Tonk, by way of filing an appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) which was barred by delay of 11 years. Counsel submits that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short,

[2025:RJ-JP:20270]

[CW-7442/2025]

(3 of 4)

“the Limitation Act”) was submitted for condonation of delay without giving any justified reason of such an inordinate delay. Counsel submits that these facts were overlooked by the First Appellate Court and the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed vide impugned order dated 10.09.2024. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the Board by way of filing the revision petition under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Act of 1955, but the same was also rejected and the aforesaid material aspect of the matter was not considered and overlooked by the Board, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition and interference of this Court is required.

¶39

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submits that the signatures of the respondents are disputed on the document dated 16.12.2010 and an FIR has also been registered in this regard with the concerned Police Station. The respondents were not aware about the above process, hence, the suit was filed immediately, after getting the notice of the aforesaid aspect of the matter along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which has been rightly allowed and the delay has been rightly condoned, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶40

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Various versions and cross versions have been made by the counsels appearing from the rival sides with regard to the their

[2025:RJ-JP:20270]

[CW-7442/2025]

(4 of 4)

knowledge and ignorance about the proceedings initiated during the campaign of Prashashan Gaon Ke Sang .

¶45

In the considered opinion of this Court that a disputed question of fact has been raised about the above proceedings and the same are required to be adjudicated by the Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides, thus this Court finds no error in the order impugned, which requires any interference of this Court.

¶46

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. However, it is expected from the First Appellate Court to make all possible endavours to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, as early as possible.

¶47

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶48

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶49

Aayush Sharma /53

Rajaram Son of Shri Ramchandra v. Ramsahai Son of Shri Harinarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajaram Son of Shri Ramchandra v. Ramsahai Son of Shri Harinarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Suman Enterprises Vs R S I D and Anr.

Star Paramedical College Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Yadav S/O Shri Badri Prasad Yadav Vs Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Bhagwan Sharda Son of Shri Narayan Das Sharda, Vs State of Rajasthan

Arta Broch Ceramics Private Limited Vs Clay Craft (India) Private Limited

M/S Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Arta Broch Ceramics Pvt.Ltd.