Back
2010 Supreme(Raj) 978
[Citation : 2011(3) RLW 2021 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Madan Lal Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Madan Lal
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15346 of 2010, decided on 20.11.2010
Satya Narain Kumawat, for Petitioners
Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 226 and 227 — Jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — These powers are very wide and extensive over the subordinate Courts and tribunals which are to be exercised within the limits of law — Supervisory in nature — High Court does not act as Court of appeal or Court of error — It can neither review nor reappreciate nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of subordinate Court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal — The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep subordinate courts and tribunal within the limits of law. (Paras 26 to 28)
Writ petition dismissed.
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 226 ,oa 227 & Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 o 227 ds rgr mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk & ;s 'kfDr;ka v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ,oa vf/kdj.kksa ij vR;Ur foLr`r ,oa O;kid gS ftudk iz;ksx fof/k dh e;kZnk ds Hkhrj djuk gksrk gS & ;s i;Zos{k.kh; izd`fr dh gS & mPp U;k;ky; dksbZ vihyh; U;k;ky; ;k =qfV U;k;ky; ds :i esa dk;Z ugha djrk & ;g v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ;k vf/kdj.k dk vo/kkj.k ftu lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gksuk rkRif;Zr gksrk gS mldk u rks ;g iqufoZyksdu u gh iquewZY;kdau vkSj u gh iqu% rkSy dj ldrk gS vkSj u gh rF; dh =qfV dks nq:Lr dj ldrk gS vkSj ;gka rd fd fof/k dh =qfV dks Hkh ugha vkSj u gh bl gsrq fuEu U;k;ky; ;k vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds LFkku ij viuk fu.kZ; izfr LFkkfir dj ldrk gS & bu 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vR;Ur gh ifjfer :i ls vkSj dsoy leqfpr ekeyksa esa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ,oa vf/kdj.kksa dks fof/k dh ifjf/k esa j[kus gsrq djuk gksrk gSA ¼in la[;k 26 ls 28½
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
By an appropriate writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the learned Board of Revenue may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority may kindly be restored and upheld.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to this writ petition are that the agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 390/1 (old) Khasra No. 390/1/1, 390/1/2 and 390/1/3 measuring 232 bigha 3 biswa situated at Village Sambhar Lake, Tehsil Phulera District Jaipur was originally recorded in the name of Gyarsa son of Govind Ram. Thereafter, after the death of Gyarsa, Kishan Lal was succeeded, who, vide registered sale-deed dated 25.2.1961, sold the land measuring 20 bigha 3 biswa to Goma Ram, Nathuram and Mangla Ram.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No. 4 to 7 namely; Nathu, Mangla Ram, Gopal and Banwari are the owner of the land on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 25.2.1961 and they have got every right to alienate the said land.
4. The aforesaid respondents vide agreement to sale deed dated 19.6.2006 sold piece of land measuring 75 x 50 totaling 3750 sq. yds. of land to the petitioner and handed over possession to the petitioner. In lieu of the order passed by the Sub Registrar Sambhar Lake, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 89,000/-.
5. On the basis of the above registered sale deed, the petitioner filed a suit for partition and declaration of his khatedari rights in respect of purchased land in the Court of S.D.O. Sambhar Lake on 28.12.2006.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer after hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment dated 31.12.2007. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur which was allowed vide judgment dated 7.3.2008 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007 passed by the S.D.O., Sambhar Lake and the petitioner was declared khatedar tenant in respect of the land measuring 3750 sq. meter out of Khasra No. 390/1/3.
7. Against the aforesaid order dated 7.3.2008, respondent No. 3 Babu Lal Acharya preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue along with an application under Section 96 C.P.C. for granting permission to file appeal along with an another application under Section of the Limitation Act.
8. It was further submitted that the Board of Revenue after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as the present respondent No. 3 (appellant) is not a person aggrieved therefore, refused to grant permission to file above appeal but at the same time, partly allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 28.10.2010 by exercising its power of superintendence and set aside the judgment dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and restored the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007 passed by the S.D.O. Sambhar Lake.
9. Against the order dated 28th October, 2010, passed by the Board of Revenue, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Satya Narain Kumawat has contended that there were two appeals against the said appellate order and of which one has been decided and another is pending while both the appeals should have been decided by one common order.
11. He has further contended that the Board of Revenue has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 63(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
12. He has further contended that in the present case, issue of khatedari rights and issue of succession of deceased Gyarsa son of Govind Ram are already subjudice in the aforesaid appeals pending adjudication before the Board of Revenue. Hence, the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 28.10.2010 be set aside.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr
