1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

JODHPUR

: ORDER :

: ORDER :

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5183/2016

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5183/2016

Bhura & Anr.

Bhura & Anr.

Vs.

Vs.

Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors.

Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors.

Date of Order : : 12.05.2016

Date of Order : : 12.05.2016

P R E S E N T

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

Mr.M.L.Khatri, for the petitioners.

<><><>

BY THE COURT:-

Petitioners have filed this writ petition under article 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned

judgement and order dated 05.06.2013 passed by Board of Revenue

Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short.'BOR'), whereby learned BOR has partly

allowed appeal of the petitioners under Section 224 of the Rajasthan

Tenency Act, 1955 (for short,'Act') and remanded the matter back to

Revenue Appellate Authority (Barmer-Jaisalmer).

The facts, in brief, are that at the threshold, respondents

filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioners

before the Assistant Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Sheo

under Section 88 & 188 of the Act. The said suit of the respondents

was dismissed by the learned Assistant Collector by its judgment

and order dated 29.06.2009. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid

2

judgment, respondents preferred appeal before the Revenue

Appellate Authority (for short, 'the RAA') and the RAA, by its

judgment and order dated 21.12.2009, allowed the appeal. The

judgment and order passed by the the RAA is again challenged by

the petitioners before the learned BOR and the learned BOR, by the

impugned judgment and order, remanded the matter back to the

RAA. While remanding the matter back, the learned BOR has

recorded cogent reasons in para 10 of the judgment and order, more

specifically, observing that the learned RAA, while allowing the

appeal, has not passed any order for injunction under Section 188 of

the Act.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, in my considered

opinion, learned BOR has not committed any error much less an

error apparent on the face of record. Moreover, the impugned

judgment and order passed has not occasioned failure of justice.

It is trite that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is to be

exercised with great care and circumspection and the same is not

akin to appellate jurisdiction.

In view thereof, I am not inclined to interfere with the

impugned judgment and order of the learned BOR. It is also

noteworthy that against the judgment and order impugned, this

petition is laid by the petitioners after a delay of almost three years

and there is no sufficient explanation for such inordinate delay and

laches. As such, the petition also suffers from the vice of delay and

3

laches.

Consequently, the petition fails and the same is hereby

dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches.

(P.K. LOHRA), J.

Bharti/15

Bharti/15