Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan vs Board Of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer on 1 July, 2019
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9039/2019
1. Satyanarayan S/o Shri Jhumar Lal, Aged About 58 Years,
By Caste Brahmin Sikhwal, Resident of Gotan, Tehsil
Merta District Nagaur.
2. Shanti Lal S/o Shri Jhumar Lal, Aged About 68 Years, By
Caste Brahmin Sikhwal, Resident of Gotan, Tehsil Merta
District Nagaur.
3. Vinod S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste
Brahmin Sikhwal, Resident of Gotan, Tehsil Merta District
Nagaur.
4. Inder Chand S/o Shri Jhumar Lal, Aged About 48 Years,
By Caste Brahmin Sikhwal, Resident of Gotan, Tehsil
Merta District Nagaur.
5. Ramniwas S/o Shri Jhumar Lal, Aged About 54 Years, By
Caste Brahmin Sikhwal, Resident of Gotan, Tehsil Merta
District Nagaur.
6. Gopi S/o Shri Jhumar Lal, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste
Brahmin Sikhwal, Resident Of Gotan, Tehsil Merta District
Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer, Ajmer.
2. The District Collector, Nagaur.
3. State of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Merta District
Nagaur.
4. Ram Lal S/o Shri Rughnath, By Caste Meghwal, Resident
of Gotan Tehsil Merta District Nagaur.
5. Arjun Ram S/o Shri Rughnath, By Caste Meghwal,
Resident of Gotan Tehsil Merta District Nagaur.
6. Shyam Lal S/o Shri Rughnath, By Caste Meghwal,
Resident of Gotan Tehsil Merta District Nagaur.
7. Pappu Devi D/o Shri Rughnath, By Caste Meghwal,
Resident of Gotan Tehsil Merta District Nagaur.
8. Baya Devi D/o Shri Rughnath, By Caste Meghwal,
Resident of Gotan Tehsil Merta District Nagaur.
9. Champa Devi D/o Shri Rughnath, By Caste Meghwal,
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 10:02:33 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-9039/2019]
Resident of Gotan Tehsil Merta District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P.Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Order 01/07/2019
1. This petition is directed against order dated 17.6.19 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 19.3.03 passed by the District Collector, Nagaur, affirming the order dated 18.8.01, passed by Tehsildar, Merta, has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant are that the private respondents herein, the members of Scheduled Caste, preferred an application under Section 183B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") before the Tehsildar, Merta for removal of the encroachment made by the petitioners on their land comprising khasra no.1272 and 1273 as also on the land forming part of the way. The application was contested by the petitioners herein by filing a reply thereto. After due consideration of the rival submissions and on the basis of the report submitted by the Land Record Inspector after taking measurement of the land at the site, the Tehsildar arrived at the finding that the petitioners herein have encroached upon the land belonging to the private respondents. Accordingly, vide order dated 18.8.01 while allowing the application, the encroachment made was directed to be removed.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.01 passed by Tehsildar, Merta, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 10:02:33 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-9039/2019] the District Collector, Nagaur vide order dated 19.3.03. The revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 19.3.03 passed by the District Collector has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in dismissing the revision petition merely on the ground of delay and laches without considering the merits of the case. Learned counsel submitted that a revenue suit preferred by the respondents before the Sub Divisional Officer, Merta is still pending and therefore, the Tehsildar, Merta could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 183B of the Act.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the caveator has supported the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue.
6. I have considered submissions of the learned counsels and perused the material on record.
7. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision petition not only on the ground of limitation rather, while examining the matter on merits, it has categorically observed that concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below does not warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
8. In the considered opinion of this court, concurrent finding arrived at by the courts below, affirmed by the Board of Revenue, remains finding of fact, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse and therefore, does not warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 10:02:33 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-9039/2019]
9. That apart, it is pertinent to note that the revision petition assailing the validity of the order dated 19.3.03 was preferred by the petitioners after a lapse of about 15 years and thus, without there being any plausible explanation for inordinate delay in filing the revision petition, the Board of Revenue was absolutely justified in dismissing the revision petition as barred by limitation, while rejecting the application preferred under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.
(SANGEET LODHA),J 8-Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 10:02:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)