SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
State of Rajasthan Through the Collector, Pali & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jor Singh S/o Late Shri. Mool Singh - Respondent
D.B Spl. Appl. Writ No. 951 of 2017
Decided On : 01-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. O.P Boob.

The violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in similar cases were central to the court's decision.

Headnote:

Limitation - Mutation Entry - The court dismissed the special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan on the grounds of limitation and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who set aside the mutation entry and reference made by the Additional Collector as time-barred, citing violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Fact of the Case:

The State of Rajasthan filed a special appeal after a delay of 286 days against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, and quashed the time-barred reference made by the Additional Collector.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the special appeal, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge and citing violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and gross delay in making the reference for cancellation of the mutation entry.

Issues: Violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, delay in making the reference for cancellation of the mutation entry, and the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge based on the violation of Section 42 of the Act and gross delay in making the reference, as well as the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case.

Final Decision: The instant special appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation and merit, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge.

JUDGMENT :

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.

1. The instant special appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan after delay of 286 days along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06th of December, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 26.10.1996 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, so also quashed the reference made by the respondent No. 3-Additional Collector, Pali dated 18.02.1993 being time barred.

3. Mr. O.P Boob, learned Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of State, vehemently argued that the judgment impugned is erroneous because mutation entry itself was in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) as late Sh. Badri, who was member of Scheduled Caste. The said objection was raised in the year 1983, however, the proceedings were terminated in favour of petitioner's father on the basis of limitation and the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 were dropped in the year 1983.

4. Admittedly, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer set aside the Mutation Entry No. 31/1957 made in the name of petitioner in the reference made in the year 1993 vide judgment dated 26.10.1996

5. Learned Single Judge while following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Karan (D) through LR's v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 8 SCC 282 set aside the judgment/order dated 26.10.1996 passed by Board of Revenue on the ground of limitation.

6. In our opinion, there is no question to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge because the reference was made for cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 31/1957 in the year 1993 after gross delay in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Karan (supra).

7. In view of above, there is no question to condone the delay of 286 days in filing this special appeal.

8. Accordingly, the instant special appeal is hereby dismissed on limitation as well as on merit.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top