1

D.B.SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 137/05

(Surja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

Date : 26.10.2006

HON'BLE MR. RAJESH BALIA,J.

HON'BLE MR. GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS,J.

Mr. Varun Goyal, for the appellant.

Mr. N.L.Joshi, for the respondents.

Having heard learned counsel for the

parties. We are of the opinion that no case is

made out for interfering in the order passed by

learned Single Judge dismissing

the writ

petition filed by the appellant on the ground of

gross latches.

Petitioner filed the writ petition No.

4330/04 DR(J) on 28.7.88 with multiple defects

which were not attended to by the petitioner for

almost five months.

The petitioner had challenged the order

dated 16.2.65, certified copy which was not

plaed on record. It was urged before learned

Single Judge that petition does not challange

the order dated 16.2.65 but is only refering the

same for explaning

the facts and sought

dispensation of filing the certified copy of the

order. However, it is clear that in the fact in

2

first instance petitioner preferred a writ

petition alleging that order dt. 16.2.65 was not

given effect to 20 years and when it was sought

to be implemented after 20 years he resisted

the same and filed writ petition to challange the

implementation of said order. The writ petition

was dismissed on 9.1.96 for want of challange to

basic order sought to be implemented.

Taking cue from the above decision the

petitioner filed an appeal to challange order

dated 13.2.65 before Revenue Appellate Authority

after 32 years. The Revenue Appellate Authority

allowed the application to condone delay. But

the Board of Revenue on Revision set aside said

order condoning delay and dismissed the appeal.

The chequered history of the case shows that

vide order Ex.1 dated 16.2.65 the existing

Khala situated at stone parellal to the Murraba

No. 129 was shifted to stone 130 by irrigation

department. For that reason it was decided to

change the way also. Therefore the existing way

which was situated through Murraba No. 130/295 to

130/302 was claimed and new way was sanctioned

through land of Murraba No.128/299 to 128/301,

125/297 to 129/297, 125,299 to 129/299, 126/302

3

to 126/303. This order remained unchallanged

untill 1997. Notwithstanding the sanction

for the change of way ordered on 16.2.65, the

same was not entered into the land record when

this was brought to the notice of the contempt

Court by the concerned officer, by order dated

14.9.87 the mutation was carried out in terms

of order 16.2.65. After mutation was made, an

application was moved by the appellant for

cancelling mutation which was recalled by SDM,

Hanumangarh vide his order dated 28.7.88.

The order of SDM, Hanumangarh was set

aside by Revenue Appellate Authority vide its

order dated 15.5.90 clearly pointing out that

order dated 16.2.65 cannot be nullified in this

manner which has not been challenged so far. It

was clarified that bringing the land record in

accordance with the direction issued by the said

order dated 16.2.65 was not execution of the

order and therefore, the period of limitation in

correcting the land record in terms of the

exising orders do not invite the application of

law of limitation. The order of the Revenue

Appellate Authority was affirmed by the Board of

Revenue vide dated 20.10.94 giving the reference

of the order dt. 16.2.65 which was not challanged

4

was still a valid order. The order of the Board

of Revenue dated 20.10.94 and the order of

Revenue Appellate Authority were subjected to the

wirt peition No. 5165/94 by the present

appellant, which was also dismissed on 9.1.96

holding that the order dated 14.9.87 could not

have been challenged without challenging the

order dated 16.2.65.

It was only after almost 21 months

thereafter the petitioner moved a