The central legal point established is the requirement for fair procedure and a reasonable opportunity of hearing in decision-making processes, as well as the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and judicial discipline.

ORDER

1. The case comes up on an application preferred by the respondents for early hearing of the case.

2. The same is not opposed by the counsel for the petitioner.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application the application for early hearing is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal today itself.

4. Brief facts noted for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 5 to 9 filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, (Camp-Padampur). Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The Sub Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, (Camp- Padampur) allowed the application for temporary injunction and passed the interim order dated 29.07.2005. Against this order dated 29.07.2005, the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority initially passed an interim order on 03.09.2005, whereby, the order dated 29.07.2005 was stayed, however, ultimately the appeal preferred by the respondent/ defendant was rejected vide order dated 03.05.2012. Being aggrieved, the respondents/defendants filed a revision petition against the order dated 03.05.2012 before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 20.07.2012 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 03.05.2012. Hence this writ Petition.

5. Learned Senior counsel submits that the order-sheets of the Board of Revenue produced on record clearly show that the petitioners were never issued notice of Revision Petition preferred by the respondent/defendant and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners straight away, the judgment dated 20.07.2012 was passed. Learned senior counsel submits that the proceedings conducted by the Board of Revenue are not only de hors the law, but are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. Since the judgment dated 20.07.2012 is having civil and evil consequences, thus, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue may be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that although they supported the order dated 20.07.2012, but are unable to show that the petitioners were ever issued notices and the order dated 20.07.2012 was passed after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel submit that one of the plaintiffs being non-petitioners No. 5/3 was duly represented. Although he is unable to show that all the persons who are party to the proceedings were issued notices and the notices were served upon them. He, therefore, submits that since the suit proceedings are still pending consideration before trial court and the interim order is operating in the writ petition, therefore, in the interest of justice, the learned trial court may be directed to decide the suit itself at an early date.

7. I have considered the submission made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case including the order impugned dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, (Raj.) Ajmer.

8. It is noted that as per the order-sheets produced before this Court of the revision petition decided by the Board of Revenue, the notices of the revision petition were never issued to the petitioners. Thus, it can be inferred that the Board of Revenue decided the revision petition preferred by the respondentdefendants without adhering to the procedure established, much less the fair procedure giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned before deciding the case. Since, the counsel for the respondents are