Mangej Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Instant intra-court appeal has been filed against order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 13.11.2013, followed by the order dt. 22.01.2014 passed on the review petition, filed by the appellant.

The Registry has pointed out a delay of 32 days in filing of the instant appeal.

We have heard counsel for appellant on the application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

Counsel submits that after the order came to be passed by the ld. Single Judge of this court dt. 13.11.2013, appellant was advised to file a review petition and that came to be decided on 22.01.2014 and immediately thereafter, the appellant has approached this court by filing instant intra-court appeal. He submits that the delay, which has been caused in filing the instant appeal, is bonafide one and deserves to be condoned.

We are satisfied with the explanation furnished for the delay, duly supported with the affidavit.

The application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay is accordingly condoned.

Heard on merits.

The grievance of appellant before the ld. Single Judge was that his mother and sister have surrendered their right in the ancestral land transferring share to one of his brother Madan Singh and according to him, the khatedari rights could not have been surrendered but can be transferred only after due compliance of the provisions of S. 41 & S. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and which according to the appellant is per-se fallacy in transfer of khatedari rights of ancestral properties by mother and sister of the appellant in favour of one of his brother and this being a pure question of law, can be examined by this court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution.

The ld. Single Judge, after taking note of the submissions made, was of the view that what has been contended can always be examined by the competent court of jurisdiction and the remedy lies before the Sub-Division Officer and the hierarchy of forum which is provided under the law and once the effective remedy is available to the appellant, the ld. Single Judge was not inclined to grant indulgence to interfere in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court available u/Art. 226 of the Constitution.

We have heard counsel for the appellant and do not find any apparent error in the order impugned which requires interference by this court.

Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is certainly at liberty to avail remedy which the ld. Single Judge observed in the order impugned.