SINGHAL, Member – This revision has been filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short ``the Act) against the order of Addl. Collector, Alwar dated 25.7.97.

(2). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land in dispute being a custodian land was allotted to the petitioner on 19.5.97 and the `sanad (Patta) No. 1070 was issued in his favour on 19.5.79. Thereafter mutation was opened in his favour on 13.10.82 by mutation No. 59. The non-petitioners filed an appeal in the court of S.D.O. against the above mutation. The said appeal was rejected on 8.4.85 by the S.D.O. on merits. Aggrieved by this order, the non-petitioners filed an appeal before Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, who dismissed the appeal on 21.12.87 for want of prosecution. Subsequently, after a lapse of time another appeal was filed by the non-petitioners before the Addl. Collector, Alwar without indicating earlier history of the case and the appeal was accepted on the point of limitation without hearing the petitioner on 5.8.96. When the petitioner came to know of this order on 3.10.96, he submitted an application before the Addl. Collector, Alwar along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for setting aside the exparte decision. The lower court vide order dated 7.2.97 accepted the application. Subsequently, the non-petitioners submitted a review application in respect of the above order before the same court, the Addl. Collector vide his impugned order dated 25.7.97 accepted the review and rejected the original application submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has submitted this revision against the impugned order.

(3). I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the record of the case and also perused the impugned order.

(4). It is not disputed that the non-petitioners previously filed an appeal in the court of S.D.O. against Mutation No. 59, which was opened on 13.10.82. It is also not in dispute that their appeal was rejected by the S.D.O. and thereafter they went in appeal before Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, who also dismissed the appeal on 21.12.87. But subsequently, another appeal was filed by the non-petitioners before the lower court without indicating the earlier history of the case and the same was accepted by the learned Addl. Collector, Alwar treating it within limitation and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The learned lower court set aside the order passed on 5.8.96 in absence of the petitioner on an application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard and notice has not been served on him and these is no order on the file of the court that the notice has been served upon him. Thereafter, the non-petitioners submitted review application and the Addl. Collector accepted the review on the ground that duly served summon has been produced by the non-petitioners before the court along with an affidavit which does to show that this summon was on the file before the order dated 5.8.96 and thereafter this summon has been taken out from the file.

(5). After going through the file of the lower court it comes out that the summons has been produced along with review application and in this connection an affidavit of the non- petitioner Suraj has also been filed and thereafter an affidavit of Shri Bhagwan S/o Narain Brahmin R/o Bhiwadi Tehsil Tijara Distt. Alwar has also been filed. The learned lower court has accepted the review application submitted by the non-petitioners solely on the basis of this summon and has come to the conclusion that before passing the order dated 5.8.96 by the court the summons were duly served on the petitioner and the petitioner has played an act of fraud and misrepresentation by taking out these summons from the file.

(6). The learned counsel of the petitioner has argued that the lower court has exceeded jurisdiction while p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document