Vijay vs Ghanshyam

A joint revenue suit was initially filed by two maternal uncle of the appellant against the present respondent Ghanshyam and the legal representative of Ram Ji Lal S/o Raghunath as defendant in the suit.

It will be relevant to quote the description of the subject land for which the revenue suit for declaration and permanent injunction came to be filed in the Court of Assistant Collector, Lalsot, District Dausa bearing Khasra No. 150 measuring 3 biswa; Khasra No. 151 measuring 7 biswa; Khasra No. 153 measuring 26 bigha 10 biswa total 27 bigha in Gram Dehlal Tehsil Lalsot. It was pleaded in the revenue suit that subject land belongs to Joint Hindu Family and each of them is entitled to their equal share but it reveals from the record that the present respondent appeared before the Court of Assistant Collector, Lalsot on the date fixed but as regard the present appellant is concerned, the order came to be passed on 5.6.2013 for closing of their right to file written statement and initiated ex parte proceedings against them and his case was that it was not in their notice about the date on which the order dt. 5.6.2013 came to be passed forfeiting their right of filing written statement and the suit came to be decided vide judgment & decree dt. 19.6.2013 which traveled upto Board of Revenue in appeal preferred u/S. 224 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and that came to be decided vide order dt. 29.5.2014 and the judgment & decree dt. 19.6.2013 and so also the order passed in first appeal by the RAA dt. 16.1.2014 were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Assistant Collector, Dausa & who was called upon to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

It is also informed to this Court that the officer who was posted as ACM Lalsot is the same who originally passed the order dt. 19.6.2013.

The appellant still approached this Court by filing writ petition with the grievance that the matter is remitted back to Assistant Collector, Dausa but in absence of any interim protection being granted in regard to the subject land in question, third party rights will be created and they will be deprived of their share entitled for under the law.

The ld. Single Judge taking note of the view expressed by the Board of Revenue was not inclined to entertain the writ petition but at the same time directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur to make enquiry in the matter against the Assistant Collector, Lalsot who decided the case no. 614/2008 dt. 19.6.2013.

The appellant submits that after the order came to be passed by the Board of Revenue remitting the matter back to the Assistant Collector, Dausa, a further order has been passed by the Board of Revenue on the administrative side and the matter has been transferred back to the Assistant Collector, Lalsot and the officer being the same who originally passed the order dt. 9.6.2013 appearance before the authority who is biased remain empty formality and they are not expecting any justice from him. At the same time, it is also informed to this Court that immediately thereafter part of the subject land has been sold by the respondent-1 and agreement to sell is placed for perusal and submits that they are interested in disposal of subject land in question and to frustrate the right of their share which yet to be examined by the revenue court.

Since the subject dispute is still to be examined by the Assistant Collector who is first revenue authority, it will not be appropriate for this Court to record any finding but at the same time, we consider appropriate to observe that case no. 614/2008 which was originally filed before the Court of Assistant Collector, Lalsot shall be heard by the Assistant Collector, Dausa and the appellant is at liberty to file their written statement and after pleadings are complete, the suit may be decided by the Assistant Collector, Dausa expeditiously in accordance with the law but at the same time taking note of the appellant''s apprehension regarding subject land being transferred and third party rights may be created, we consider appropriate to observe that as regard subject land in question description of which has been indicated above, the parties are directed to maintain status quo and no further transfer/alienation of the subject land shall take place at least for a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Assistant Collector, Dausa who is at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the inter se rights of the parties in regard to the subject land in question.

Collector, Dausa is directed to transfer the revenue suit no. 614/2008 to the Assistant Collector, Dausa and both the parties may appear before the Court of Assistant Collector, Dausa on 15.9.2014. A copy of this order may be separately sent to the District Collector, Dausa for necessary compliance.

The appeal in the above terms stands disposed of.