Dhanna Lal vs Additional Collector (Third) and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—No one has appeared for Respondent No. 2 despite service of notice.

This writ petition has been filed by Petitioner Dhanna Lal assailing order of Additional Collector (Third), Jaipur, dated 18.01.2007, by which revision petition filed by him against patta dated 25.08.1981 issued in favour of Respondent No. 2 Kedarmal Kanda, has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the patta was issued to Respondent No. 2 by the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, by fabrication/forging the record. On that very basis, challan against both of them was filed for offence under Sections 424, 467, 468, 478, 120B, 408, 188 and 218 IPC. Petitioner invited attention of the court towards order-sheet of trial court in which charges for those offences have been framed against them. It is argued that the matter came to the light when Respondent No. 2 started raising construction and that is why revision petition was filed with delay.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner has cited judgment of full bench of this Court in Chiman Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. RLR 2000 (2) 39, and argued that the full bench of this Court in aforesaid judgment held that even though there is no limitation prescribed for filing revision petition, but such petition has to be filed within a reasonable time period, however, in case of fraud, delay would be inconsequential howsoever long it may be. In the present case learned Counsel argued that ratio of that judgment is applied with full force.

Shri Jinesh Jain, learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that revision petition was rightly dismissed by Additional Collector (Third), Jaipur, but he could not deny the fact that on the basis of very same allegation, criminal process has been lodged against the then Sarpanch and Respondent No. 2, the beneficiary of the patta.

In view of the peculiarity attached to this petition, the revision petition could not have been dismissed as barred by limitation. Delay in filing of revision petition is therefore ordered to be condoned and impugned order dated 18.01.2007 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector (Third), Jaipur, who may after notice to affected parties, decide the same afresh on merits.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.