Mishru vs Board of Revenue and others

Shethna, J.

(1) Filing of extra set in this petition is dispensed with.

(2). Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3). On the basis of Annex. 1, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Jakhar that it was not a deity''s land though it is entered in the name of deity but the said land was cultivated by Ghisa who became tenant of the land on abolition of Jagir. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the appeal filed by the Deity on 26.10.98 (Annex.5) is required to be set aside. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the division bench judgment of this Court in case of Ram Lal vs. Board of Revenue (1).

(4). Having carefully gone through the impugned order at Annex.5 passed by the Board of Revenue, it is clear that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench has no application to the facts of the present case, therefore, 1 have refrained myself from dealing with the same in detail.

(5). It was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Sharma for the respondent plaintiff that the point in question is squarely covered in his favour by several judgments of this Court namely, (1) in case of Atma Ram vs. State (2) and in case of Kehar Singh vs. Board of Revenue and others (3), passed by my learned brother Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. on 14.11.2000 in S.B.C. Writ Pet. No. 2499/2000.

(6). In my considered opinion, the aforesaid judgments squarely apply in this case. It is a deity''s land and once that finding is arrived at by the fact finding authority i.e. Board of Revenue in appeal, then this Court cannot lake a different view of the matter in its writ jurisdiction.

(7) This petition was also required to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had earlier filed suit and the judgment in the said suit has become final.

(8) Under the circumstances, this petition is required to be dismissed.

(9) However, at this stage, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Jakhar for the petitioner that this petition was already admitted and today it was placed in the default as extra set was not filed, therefore, this petition should not be decided just now.

(10). It is unfortunate that such submission is made by a senior advocate Mr. C.R, Jakhar only when he argued the matter and when he realised that the Court is not with him. This was not proper at all. Such a request cannot be granted. When the matter is fully heard, then the Court must proceed with the judgment otherwise it would be a waste of time of one and all including of this Court in hearing the matters for a considerable time.

(11). Under the circumstances the matter is heard and decided today itself.

(12). In view of what has been staled above, this petition is dismissed.

(13). Stay petition is also dismissed.

(14). The order is pronounced in the open court in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties.