IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of fair hearing in administrative proceedings, asserting that no party should be condemned unheard, particularly in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant (writ petitioner) has challenged the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.603/2012 (Hari Ram Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.) whereby the appellant’s writ petition, preferred against the judgment dated 06.09.2011 and order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, was dismissed.

2. The bone of contention in the present case is an agricultural land (khatedari land) comprising Khasra No.454, 455, 456, 457, 738, 470, 175, 176 & 213 total measuring 158 bighas and 3 biswas situated at Village Bhundana, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur. The said land was under the khatedari of the appellant’s (writ petitioner) father; after the death of the appellant’s father, the said land as a whole was mutated in the name of the appellant. However, as per the claim of the appellant (writ petitioner), half share in the said land has been wrongly entered in the name of respondent No.3-Smt. Keshi (since deceased, represented through her LRs herein).

3. Pertaining to his claim, as above, in the land in question, the appellant (writ petitioner) instituted a revenue suit before the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur seeking declaration and possession under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, while averring, amongst others that the said entry in the name of respondent No.3, was made on the basis of a forged sale document, and a year prior to filing of the suit, the private respondents (defendants) have illegally taken possession of the land in question. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellant, vide the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1975.

3.1. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the respondent-defendant Smt. Keshi (since deceased represented through LRs herein) preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, in the year 2006; alongwith the said appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred by the respondent-defendant. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 31.12.2009, rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the respondent, thereby, the appeal also stood dismissed.

3.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2009, the respondent No.3 (since deceased, represented through her LRs herein), preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereupon the said appeal was partly allowed vide the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2011, while quashing and setting aside the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the judgment & decree of the learned Assistant Collector and remanding the matter back to the learned Assistant Collector for deciding the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law. Thereupon, the appellant sought review of the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2011, by preferring a review application before the learned Board of Revenue, but that too, was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.01.2012.

3.2.1. As mentioned above, since the writ petition preferred against the said judgment as well as order of the learned Board of Revenue was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant (writ petitioner).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) submitted that as the record would reveal, the learned Board of Revenue, vide the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2011, has quashed and set aside the judgment dated 31.12.2009 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, along with the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1975 of the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, while castigating the determination of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and truncating the rights of the appellant, which already stood crystallized in his favour way back in the y