MOHANTY, M.–This is a revision petition filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur dated 29.8.97.in file No. 83197.

(2). This brief facts of the case are that a portion of khasra No. 794 measuring 10 biswas situated in village Kankani Tehsil Luni is classified as `gair mumkin pahadi, in which a Bada has been constructed by Shri Gokalram the non-applicant against whom proceedings u/S. 91 of the L.R. Act was filed by the Tehsildar, Luni. The Tehsildar after hearing both the parties, imposed a penalty and ordered dispossession of the non-petitioner from the Government land. Against the order of the Tehsildar, an appeal was filed before the Collector, Jodhpur who after hearing both the parties, confirmed the order of the Tehsildar vide his order dated 02.6.97. A second appeal was filed before the R.A.A., Jodhpur which was accepted and the case was sent for regularisation. The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the R.A.A..Jodhpur dated 29.8.97.

(3). The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate and the advocate for the non- petitioner argued the case only on the point of limitation. It was argued that the order of the R.A.A. was passed on 29.8.97 against which the present revision petition was filed on 28 ` 12.98. The revision was filed much after the 90 days limitation prescribed for the purpose. It is argued that the revision petition was. filed after 1 year & 1 month, while the petitioner had full knowledge of the decision of the R.A.A. dated.29.8.97. The order of the R.A.A., Jodhpur dated 29.8.97 was sent to the Tehsildar, Luni on 10.11.97 and tehsil received the same vide receipt No. 2123 dated 19.11.97. The non-petitioner filed an application before Tehsildar, Luni on 6.1.98 which was duly accepted by him on the same date and marked to the concerned Tehsil Patwari for further necessary action. Thus,, it is clear that from,the record, the Tehsildar had full knowledge of the decision of R.A.A. on 06.1.98. The District Collector, Jodhpur sent a letter to Tehsildar, Luni. in this regard vide his letter No. Judicial/Suit/98/585 dated 28.3.98 which was duly received by the Tehsildar on 1.4.98 and in that letter, it was inquired by the Tehsildar to file a revision against the order of the R.A.A. which was ordered by the Collector on 16.7.98 for filing g reply and appointing an officer-in-charge in this regard. The present revision petition has been filed on 28.12.98. The Dy. Govt. Advocate argued that on the point of limitation in government cases, these are the kind of time normally taken in due process and therefore the delay in condoning the filing of appeal may be granted.

(4). As against this, the advocate of the non-petitioner cited certain judgment of the Revenue Board and the Honble Rajasthan High Court, in which it has been held as under:-

1. Buddha. vs. State of Rajasthan (1) : In this case, Honble Member Shri Rajendra Saxena has held that ``Under the Indian Limitation Act, Section 5- Impugned order pronounced in presence of advocate of the petitioner-Petitioner had constructive knowledge of the same- Any plea to the contrary should have been supported by an affidavit of the advocate- Plea of knowledge from. Patwari cannot be considered in absence of affidavit from Patwari.

2. State of Rajasthan vs. Sukhdev Singh (2) : In this case, Honble Justice Shri P.P. Naolekar has held that `Appeal of the State barred by limitation by 63 days- There must be sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within period of limitation- In that regard, much differentiation would not be made between the Government and a private party- A bald statement that there was delay in granting sanction by concerned Department of Govt., for filing appeal would not constitute a ground for condonation of delay- Application u/S. 5 dismissed.

3. State of Rajasthan vs. Mangi Lal (3) : In this case, it has been held that "limitation Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document