Savitri Devi and Others vs District Collector and Others

Matter has come up on the application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act. This court is satisfied with the explanation furnished for the delay, duly supported with the affidavit. Consequently, the application stands allowed and the delay stands condoned.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Instant intra-court appeal has been preferred against self same judgment of the ld. Single Judge dt.31.05.2013 which also came to be challenged by few of the appellants in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 617/2013.

In the instant case, writ petition was basically filed by the petitioners-respondents with the grievance that in-spite of having succeeded in the proceedings initiated u/S.183B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Tehsildar, Jhunjhunu and thereafter in appellate proceedings before the Collector, Jhunjhunu, still they have not been able to get vacant possession of the subject property in question of which they are claiming khatedari i.e. Khasra Nos. 1320, 1321 and 1322 measuring 9 bighas and 6 biswas situated at village Jhunjhunu, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu, as successors of one Jadav Bai, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

It is brought to our notice that three appellants jointly preferred appeal and prayed that they were initially impleaded as party-respondents but later on their names were deleted from the array of respondents and the order which was passed by the ld. Single Judge dt.31.05.2013 is adversely affect their rights and as they have not been heard, indulgence of hearing may be provided to them.

The Division Bench of this court vide order dt.25.07.2013 decided the Special Appeal (Writ) No. 617/2013, arising from the self-same judgment of the ld. Single Judge and it was agreed by the parties, on mutual basis, as under:-

"During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties agreed to dispose of this special appeal on mutual basis as under:-

(i) Revenue Board is directed to prepone the date from 25.9.2013 to 23.8.2013 in TA Revision Petition No. 7226/2012, Smt. Rampyari and Ors v/s District Collector Jhunjhunu and Ors.

(ii) Parties are directed to appear before the Circuit Bench of Revenue Board at Jaipur on 23.8.2013. Shri Punia, learned counsel undertakes to appear in the matter on behalf of all the revision-petitioners in the Revenue Board.

(iii) The Revenue Board will decide the Revision petition or at least stay petition on 23.8.2013 or any other date, within two weeks thereafter, to be fixed by the Revenue Board. In case, the strike of the Advocates is not called off on or before 23.8.2013, then the Revenue Board will fix the matter within two weeks thereafter and will make an endeavour to dispose of the stay petition, filed with the Revision Petition No. 7226/2012, as early as possible or at least within two weeks from the date the strike of Advocates is called off.

(iv) The three appellants named above, will not be evicted till the disposal of the stay petition filed in Revision Petition No. 7226/2012 by the Revenue Board.

(v) The order of Single Bench dated 31.5.2013 will remain effective against others, except the three appellants, named above.

(vi) Any observations made in the order of Single Bench or this order will not influence the Revenue Board while deciding the stay petition or the revision petition pending before it."

Indisputably, the present appellants were also impleaded as party-respondents in the main writ petition but for the reasons best known, they were also deleted from the array of respondents by the original writ petitioners and after order came to be passed by the ld. Single Judge dt.31.05.2013, they too have preferred instant intra-court appeal and the contesting writ petitioners are duly served and represented by their counsel Mr. Yash Sharma and Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General is appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

Counsel for appellants submits that the instant intra-court appeal, arising from the self-same judgment of the ld. Single Judge dt.31.05.2013, may be decided in the terms, agreed by the parties, as indicated from the order dt.25.07.2013.

Counsel for respondents (original writ petitioners) submits that they were not originally parties to the proceedings initiated u/S.183B of the Act, 1955. However, this fact has been disputed by the present appellants, who have also preferred revision and the matter is pending before the ld. Board of Revenue.

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General submits that once there is an order passed by the Division Bench, arising from the self-same judgment of the ld. Single Judge, dt.25.07.2013, there appears no justification in taking a different view in the matter and also supports the order passed by the Division Bench and submits that it will be in the interest of justice to pass similar order in the terms, agreed by the parties and indicated in the order dt.25.07.2013.

It is brought to our notice that in compliance of order of the ld. Single Judge dt.31.05.2013 and of the Division Bench dt.25.07.2013, the Tehsildar, Jhunjhunu submitted his inspection report dt.03.10.2013 and recorded that except three persons namely Rampyari, Chandrakala and Suman Devi, others have been evicted from the subject property in question.

Counsel for appellants submits that interim stay order was granted in their favour by this court not to dispossess them from the subject property in question on 04.10.2013.

After taking note of the submissions made, this court considers it appropriate to dispose of the instant intra-court appeal in the similar terms, as considered by the coordinate Bench of this court in order dt.25.07.2013. At the same time, while taking note of the Cl.(v), referred by the Division Bench in order dt.25.07.2013, what has been contended by the parties may also be taken care of and status quo with respect to the subject property in question, qua the parties as exist today shall not be disturbed and let the parties may appear before the ld. Board of Revenue on the next date fixed in the matter to avoid further complications.

It is also informed that while disposing of SAW No. 617/2013 vide order dt.25.07.2013, the coordinate Bench of this court directed the ld. Board of Revenue to decide the matter within the stipulated period but despite order of the Division Bench, the matter is still pending and has not been decided so far.

Taking note of the submissions made, this court considers it appropriate to direct the revisional court (Board of Revenue) to decide the pending revision petition, in no case within a period of two months, after the parties put their appearance on the next date of hearing.

We, however, make it clear that what has been observed supra by this court is only for the purpose of disposal of the instant intra-court appeal and the authorities may not be influenced/inhibited by the observations made by this court, in any other collateral proceedings and may take its own decision independently in accordance with law.

Let copy of this order may be sent to the Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer to be placed before the Chairman of the Board for necessary compliance of the order and its report may also be sent to the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) of this court.

Consequently, the instant intra-court appeal, stands disposed of, as observed supra.