Radhegopal vs The Board of Revenue Ajmer and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits he is not impugning the order dated 28-2-2008 passed by the Naib Tehsildar Bahrawanda Kalan, District Sawai Madhopur finding the petitioner guilty u/s 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (herein after '' 1956 Act''), nor is he impugning the directions for petitioner''s removal from sivai chak (Government land) or payment of fine. He submits that the limited challenge in the writ petition is to the order of civil imprisonment for one month. Senior Counsel submits that in the context of directions issued by the Naib Tehsildar Bahrawanda Kala, District Sawai Madhopur that petitioner be visited civil imprisonment for a period of one month u/s 91 (2) of the 1956 Act the petitioner has already surrendered and now he is jail since 28-4-2012. Counsel submits that u/s 91 (2) of the 1956 Act there is no minimum sentence prescribed and only the maximum of three months has been prescribed.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has already faced the sentence for breach of law and in the facts of the case this court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the context of petitioner''s background as a poor agriculturist who has learnt the lesson of consequence of breach of law and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period of sentence undergone.

Mr. Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel does not seriously oppose the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Consequently, even while upholding the order dated 28-2-2008 passed by the Naib Tehsildar Bahrawanda Kala, District Sawai Madhopur, as upheld upto the Board of Revenue Ajmer, I direct that the civil imprisonment of one month imposed on the petitioner Radhegopal s/o Naga be reduced to the period already undergone, and the petitioner Radhegopal be released from civil imprisonment. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application also stands disposed of.