Sayar Devi And Anr vs Nandu Bai And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on 25.9.2019 aggrieved against the judgment dated 12.6.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 4.4.1996 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, has been rejected.

On an application moved by the petitioners, based on a FSL report, the District Magistrate, Rajasmand, by order dated 13.5.1996 ordered for mutation in favour of petitioners.

The said order was set aside by the Divisional Commissioner by its order dated 4.9.1996 (Annex.8), against which, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue.

The Board of Revenue on finding that the suit filed by the petitioners seeking cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the respondents had been dismissed and that in the criminal proceedings based on the FSL report, the respondents have been acquitted by the Criminal Court, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner did not require interference and consequently dismissed the appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to make submissions that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is not justified. Reliance has been placed on an unregistered sale deed (Annex.2) said to have been executed in their favour.

Further submissions have been made that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default i.e. not on merits and, therefore, the same could not form the basis for passing of the order by the Board of Revenue.

Qua the delay in filing the writ petition after 19 years of passing of the order dated 12.6.2000, it was submitted that the circumstances of the petitioners were such that they could not approach the Court in time and, therefore, the delay is of no consequence.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

Admittedly qua the registered sale deed executed in favour of the respondents, the petitioners filed a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed (Annex.5), however, the suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and, therefore, subsequent proceedings, even otherwise, are barred under provisions of Order IX Rule 9 CPC. In any case, in the present proceedings before revenue authority, the Collector based on the indications made in the FSL report, ordered for mutation in name of petitioners, however, the same was reversed by the Divisional Commissioner and in the meanwhile, the respondents were acquitted of the charges by the competent Criminal Court and in view thereof, basis of mutation in favour of petitioners i.e. FSL report also stood negated.

In view thereof, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the appeal of the petitioners on the grounds indicated hereinbefore, cannot be faulted.

The delay sought to be explained in filing the writ petition after 19 years, also is ipse dixit, the petition clearly suffers from latches.

In view of the above fact situation, no case for interference in the orders impugned is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.