AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This review application is filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer for review of the judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed in D.B.Civil Special
Appeal (W) No.125/2004, Ganpat Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Office has pointed out that the present review application is filed with a delay of 636 days. Along with the review application, an application under
section 5 of the Limitation Act is also filed by the applicants with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing the review application.
An application (APPLW No.4548/2016) was preferred on behalf of the applicants seeking amendment of the review application, which was allowed
by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2016.
In support of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that as a matter of fact, in D.B.Civil
Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004, this Court vide order dated 14.11.2013 directed the Registry to issue notice to appellant - Ganpat Lal through
registered post with AD, however, no such notice was ever issued to him pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2013 and without
granting any opportunity to the appellant, D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004 was listed for hearing on 25.03.2014 and on that day, the
arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved and thereafter vide judgment dated 16.04.2014, the said appeal was dismissed.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in the judgment dated 16.04.2014, the Division Bench has wrongly observed that pursuant to
the directions given on 14.11.2013, notice of the appellant Nos.1 and 3 received unserved with a remark that despite several efforts, the whereabouts
of appellant - Ganpat Lal could not be traced. It is argued that when no such notice was ever issued to Ganpat Lal, there is no question of the said
notice remained unserved upon Ganpat Lal.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the applicants came to know about the judgment dated 16.04.2014 in December 2015
and after obtaining certified copy of the judgment and relevant order-sheets, this review application is filed.
It is, therefore, prayed on behalf of the applicants that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the review application be
condoned.
It is true that on 14.11.2013, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court ordered for issuance of notice to appellant-Ganpat Lal through registered post,
however, from the record, it is not borne out that such notice has ever been issued to Ganpat Lal. It appears that due to inadvertence, in the judgment
dated 16.04.2014, it has been observed that the notices sent to Ganpat Lal and others through registered post received unserved with a remark that
despite several efforts, the whereabouts of appellantGanpat Lal could not be traced.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that the applicants have sufficiently explained the delay in filing the review application. Hence, the
application (CMCW No.216/2016) under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the present review application is condoned.
The review application is heard on merits.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has failed to consider that the Board of Revenue has reversed
the judgments of Sub-Divisional officer and the Revenue Appellate Authority on the basis of the land Revenue Receipt, Dhal Banchh and Girdawari
entries, however, it has failed to take into consideration that the rights of the appellant are not attracted on the basis of those entries.Â
It is also contended that the Board of Revenue has reversed the findings of both the courts below on irrelevant considerations and the said aspect has
not been considered by the Division Bench while passing of the judgment dated 16.04.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also argued that as a matter of fact, the applicants became Khatedars by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955 and once their Khatedari is established, the said Khatedari land cannot be transferred or acquired.Â
It is also contended that so far as the acquisition proceedings are concerned, the entire acquisition proceedings were void as the mandatory provisions
of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have not been followed. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the said aspect of the
matter has not been considered by the Division Bench while passing the judgment dated 16.04.2014 and therefore, the judgment dated 16.04.2014
passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004 is liable to be reviewed.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and after going through the judgment dated 16.04.2014, we are of the opinion that the arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the applicants in support of review application are more or less similar to the arguments as raised by learned counsel
appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellants and the same were sufficiently dealt with in the judgment dated 16.04.2014.
It is also noticed that similar arguments were raised on behalf of the applicants before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge vide
detailed judgment dismissed the writ petition on 13.11.2013, which was assailed in the D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.125/2004.
Resultantly, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record and there is no force in this review application.
Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.