The court ruled that the parties must prove the validity of documents in a pending revenue suit, affirming the due process of evidentiary hearings.

Order

18/08/2025

1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that your lordship may be pleased to allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ order and directions:-

(A) That the order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer Pipar City, District Jodhpur & Order dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure-6) passed by Board of Revenue may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(B) That any appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Upon perusal of the case file, this Court finds that a revenue suit under Sections 88 , 53 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 for declaration of Khatedari rights and for partition of the land before the Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar City, Jodhpur is pending adjudication. In the aforesaid suit it was pleaded by the respondent No.1 that Shri Pooru Giri S/o Shri Swaroop Giri on 18.05.1961 sold the land in dispute to the ancestors of respondent No.1 and handed over the peaceful possession of the land.

3. The record of the case indicates that for about six years, the petitioner did not file any reply to the aforesaid revenue suit. However, the reply was taken on record only upon an application being filed on his behalf on 06.12.2022. The petitioner thereafter, requested to place a photocopy of the unregistered document dated 18.05.1961 relating to the sale of the land in question in part D of the case file.

4. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar City vide order dated 19.10.2023 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the revenue suit filed by the respondent No.1 is mainly based on the written document dated 18.05.1961. The correctness or validity or genuineness or the relevance of the said document is to be proved by the parties on the basis of the evidences led by them before the learned Court below. The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar City has been affirmed by the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated

01.08.2024.

5. This Court having perused the impugned orders do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. In the opinion of this Court, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar City in its order has committed no illegality in holding that since the revenue suit filed by the respondent No.1 is based on the sale document dated 18.05.1961, the parties during the course of suit can led evidence regarding correctness or validity or genuineness or the relevance of the same.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition as well as the stay application stand dismissed.