High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 02 RAJ CK 0131

LRs. of Ganga Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 2 February 2001 · Citation: (2001) 2 WLC 223 : (2007) 2 WLN 10

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.J. Shethna, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 394 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 419 words

B.J. Shethna, J.—Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Khatri, one of the standing counsel of the respondent Department, is directed to accept notice for the respondent Department. Mr. Goyal to supply copy of the writ petition to Mr. Khatri.

2.

At the request and by the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard and disposed of today by this order.

3.

The main contention raised by learned counsel Shri Goyal was that the order of reference passed by Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat was bad in law and illegal because the said order was passed against a dead person. The present petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Ganga Ram against whom the impugned order at Annex. 2 was passed. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference against a dead person by its order dated 21.12.1999 (Annex. 3). Application u/s 65(2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed before the Board of Revenue, wherein, it was pointed out by the petitioners that deceased Ganga Ram died long back and the impugned orders at Annx. 2 and 3 were passed against a dead person. The case was sent back to the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 11.5.2000, but surprisingly, while remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat, the Board of Revenue observed that:

The earlier judgment issued by Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat was not a completely reasoned judgment and enough material was not available as evidence before the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation. Therefore, it has been correctly set aside by the Board of Revenue on 21.12.1999.

4.

Once the matter is remanded by the Board of Revenue to the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat then it was not proper on the part of the Board of Revenue to make the aforesaid observations. The very purpose of remanding the case to subordinate authority stands frustrated because no authority would dare to take a different view of the matter once there is a clear cut finding recorded by the higher authority.

5.

Under the circumstances, the aforesaid observations made by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order Annex. 4 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat is directed to decide the matter afresh after extending opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners without being swayed away by any observations whatsoever made by the authorities in their order at Annexs. 2, 3 & 4 respectively. The petition is allowed accordingly.