HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7288/2022

1.

Rambabu Sharma S/o Late Kanheya Lal Mahrashi, R/o

Dharmpura, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

2.

Ramkishore Sharma S/o Late Kanheya Lal Mahrashi, R/o

Dharmpura, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

3.

Shyamlal Sharma S/o Late Kanheya Lal Mahrashi, R/o

Dharmpura, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Through Tehsildar, Jaipur District Jaipur.

2.

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Secretary

Jda, Indra Circle, Jaipur.

3.

Omprakash Sharma S/o Late Kanheya Lal Mahrashi, R/o

Dharmpura, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Since Deceased).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj with

Mr. M.K. Chaturvedi

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

27/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs

against the judgment dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Board of

Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, “BoR”) whereby, the

appeal no.TA/18/449/Jaipur preferred by the respondent no.2-

Jaipur Development Authority, against the judgment dated

29.05.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for

brevity, “RAA”), Jaipur dismissing the appeal no.277/2016 against

the judgment dated 23.11.2015 passed by the Court of Assistant

(2 of 5)

[CW-7288/2022]

Collector, Jaipur City-I in Revenue Suit no.182/2010 decreeing the

suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent

injunction, has been allowed as also against the judgment dated

23.02.2022 passed by the BoR dismissing the Review Petition

no.TA/2019/6771/Jaipur filed by the petitioners.

The facts in brief are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit

for declaration and permanent injunction qua the land of Khasra

no.1/84 measuring 10 Bigha Village Dharampura Tehsil and

District Jaipur on the premise that their late father Kanhaiya Lal

was in possession of the land and on his application, the Sub-

Tehsildar, Kalwar, vide its orders dated 16.03.1983, 10.10.1983

and 1.10.1984, entered him as “Shikmi Kashtkar” of the aforesaid

land and its subsequent mutation in favour of Jaipur Development

Authority was bad in law. The suit was decreed by the Court of

Assistant Collector vide its judgment dated 23.11.2015 and the

appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent no.2, the Jaipur

Development Authority came to be dismissed by the RAA vide its

judgment dated 29.05.2017 on the ground of limitation. The

second appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 against dismissal

of their appeal, has been allowed by the BoR vide its judgment

dated 18.10.2019 and the review petition filed thereagainst by the

petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made two-fold

submissions while assailing the legality and validity of the

judgment dated 18.10.2019. Firstly, he submitted that the BoR

erred in allowing the second appeal preferred by the respondent

no.2 without setting aside the judgment passed by the RAA

dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel

submitted that the BoR has only, in its para 12 of the judgment,

(3 of 5)

[CW-7288/2022]

condoned the delay in preferring the second appeal but, nowhere

recorded a finding that dismissal of the first appeal by the RAA on

limitation was bad in law.

Second limb of contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that findings of the learned BoR that the judgment

and decree passed by the learned trial Court are not sustainable in

the eye of law being based on photocopies of the orders dated

16.03.1983, 10.10.1983 and 1.10.1984 which were inadmissible

in evidence, are perverse in as much as it did not appreciate that

vide its order dated 24.03.2015, the learned trial Court has

allowed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 65 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua the