Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Binjaram vs Lrs Of Late Shri Mohanram on 20 September, 2022
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 261/2021
1. Binjaram S/o Late Shri Ganeshram Jatiya, Aged About 86
Years, Resident Of Aanganwa, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
2. Chuttararam S/o Shri Chellaram @ Jagdish Chandra
Jatiya, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Aanganwa,
Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
3. Kesharam S/o Shri Chottharam Jatiya, Aged About 52
Years, Resident Of Aanganwa, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
4. Durgaram S/o Late Shri Ganesharam Jatiya, Aged About
68 Years, Resident Of Aanganwa, Tehsil And District
Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Lrs Of Late Shri Mohanram, Son Of Late Shri Ganeshram
Jatiya-
2. Smt. Magidevi W/o Late Shri Mohanram, By Caste Jatiya,
Resident Of Aanganwa, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
3. Sharwan Kumar S/o Late Shri Mohanram, By Caste Jatiya,
Resident Of Aanganwa, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
4. Heeralal S/o Late Shri Mohanram, By Caste Jatiya,
Resident Of Aanganwa, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
5. Mukundram S/o Shri Chellaram @ Jagdish Chandra Jatiya,
Resident Of Aanganwa, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
6. Smt. Chuki Devi W/o Shri Chellaram @ Jagdish Chandra
Jatiya, Resident Of Aanganwa, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
7. Tehsildar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Mehta
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:33:00 AM)
(2 of 4) [CW-261/2021]
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order 20/09/2022 This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgment dated 14.11.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short 'the BoR') in Appeal No.8758/08/ Jodhpur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the BoR in the review application filed by the petitioners.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and partition in the court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur (for short 'the SDO') seeking declaration and partition of 31.4 bigha of land of Khasra No.162 of Village Aanganwa, Tehsil & District Jodhpur. It was claimed before the SDO that the above-referred land is a joint khatedari land of the petitioners, however, the same has been recorded in the name of Mohanram. It was, thus, submitted before the SDO that the land in question was also the khatedari land of the petitioners alongwith Mohanram, therefore, the decree of of declaration and partition may be issued.
In the said suit, 'Iqbali- jawabdawa' (consent reply) was filed on behalf of Mohanram and, on the basis of the same, the SDO decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 29.12.1986.
After 21 years, respondent - Mohanram has filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur (for short 'the (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:33:00 AM) (3 of 4) [CW-261/2021] RAA') claiming that the land in question was purchased by him. It is also claimed that no notice of the suit was ever served upon him and even no reply to the suit is filed on his behalf. It is further claimed that the SDO has passed the order only on the basis of the Iqbali- jawabdawa filed by somebody else and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the SDO may be set aside.
The petitioners have contested the appeal before the RAA, however, the RAA has concluded that there is no proof that the summons were ever served upon Mohanram and Iqbali- jawabdawa was filed on his behalf. The RAA while observing the same has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.12.1986 passed by the SDO and remanded the matter to the SDO with a direction to decide the suit filed by petitioners within a period of 180 days with a further direction to the parties to remain present before the SDO on 22.04.2008. With the aforesaid directions, the RAA has allowed the appeal filed by Mohanram vide judgment dated 24.03.2008.
Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the BoR, which was dismissed by the BoR vide judgment dated 14.11.2011 and the review petition preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2018 by the BoR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the RAA as well as the BoR have grossly erred in passing the impugned orders. It is submitted that in the suit filed for declaration and partition, Mohanram has filed the Iqbali- jawabdawa and, on the basis of which, the SDO has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the RAA has grossly erred in interfering the appeal filed by (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:33:00 AM) (4 of 4) [CW-261/2021] Mohanram after more than 20 years. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned judgments passed by the BoR as well as the RAA may kindly be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the SDO on 29.12.1986 may kindly be affirmed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and submitted that as a matter of fact, no summons were ever served upon Mohanram and he has never filed Iqbali- jawabdawa and, therefore, the RAA as well as the BoR have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners have failed to convince this Court that summons were ever served upon respondent - Mohanram at any point of time and he has filed Iqbali- jawabdawa. It is also not proved that, the SDO has ascertained that the same is filed by Mohanram only.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the BoR as well as the RAA.
It is to be noticed that the suit for declaration and partition was filed by petitioners way back in the year 1988, therefore, it is appropriate to direct the SDO to decide the suit filed on behalf of the petitioners for declaration and partition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 1-mohit/-
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:33:00 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)