Manish Kumar S/O Mahesh Kumar vs Late Mahesh Kumar S/O Late Amarchand … on 12 March, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Manish Kumar S/O Mahesh Kumar vs Late Mahesh Kumar S/O Late Amarchand … on 12 March, 2025

Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

[2025:RJ-JP:11425]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2024/2025

Manish Kumar S/o Mahesh                    Kumar,        R/o     Mandha,   Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar
                                                      ----Petitioner/Defendant
                                    Versus
1.       Late Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Amarchand Jain, R/o
         Mandha (Surera), Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar
1/1.     Abhishek Kumar Jain S/o Late Mahesh Kumar
1/2.     Amit Kumar Jain S/o Late Mahesh Kumar
1/3.     Manish Kumar Jain S/o Late Mahesh Kumar
1/4.     Anil Kumar Jain S/o Late Mahesh Kumar
1/5.     Shobha Devi Jain W/o Late Mahesh Kumar
         All are R/o Aabad Shobhakunj, Bazar Samiti Ke Pichhe,
         Sandalpur Purab, Post Mahendru, Tehsil And District
         Patana, Bihar
                                           Respondents/Plaintiff

2. Kamla Devi D/o Gendalal, R/o Mir Marke, Sufi Sahab
Lane, Kamar Patti Masjid, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati (Assam)

3. Rampyari Devi D/o Gendalal, R/o Babulal Toil, Budu
Ranchi (Jharkhand) Mir Marke, Sufi Sahab Lane, Kamar
Patti Masjid, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, (Assam)

4. Ashish Patni S/o Bhagchand Jain, R/o Omi Sadu Building,
2 Floor, Ashok Path, Behind Sadu Nursing Home, Tedium
Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

All Are Through Power Of Attorney Shravan Kumar Sevda
Son Of Jodharam, R/o Sevda Ki Dhani, Bharija, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bharija, Tehsil Dantaramgarh,
District Sikar

6. Patwari, Patwar Halka, Bharija, Tehsil Dantaramgarh,
District Sikar

7. Sub Registrar, Registrar Office Tehsil Dantaramgarh,
District Sikar

8. Tahsildar, Tehsil Office Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG assisted by
Ms. Harshita Thakral
Ms. Dhriti Laddha
Mr. Hemant Taylor with
Mr. S.R. Choudhary

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:15:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:11425] (2 of 3) [CW-2024/2025]

Judgment / Order
12/03/2025

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by

the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity “the BoR”) in

Revision No.TA/4291/2024: Kamla Devi & Ors. versus Abhishek

Kumar & Ors. whereby, while allowing the revision petition ex

parte, order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh dated

08.11.2010 was set aside with a direction to it to decide the

application pending consideration under Section 212 of the

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act

of 1955”) within a month.

The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Mahesh Kumar-the

predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.1/1 to 1/5/Plaintiff

(for short “the plaintiff”) filed a suit against the

petitioner/defendant No.1 and the proforma respondents No.2 to 8

for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of entries in

Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (for

brevity “the trial Court”) wherein, in an application filed under

Section 212 of the Act of 1955, the trial Court, vide its ex parte

ad-interim injunction order dated 08.11.2010, directed the parties

to maintain status quo. An appeal preferred thereagainst by some

of the respondents came to be dismissed as not maintainable by

the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar vide its order dated

20.05.2024. However, the revision petition preferred thereagainst

by the proforma respondents No.2 to 4 was allowed by the BoR

vide its order impugned dated 31.07.2024 in the manner as stated

hereinabove without even issuing notice to the respondents.

(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:15:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:11425] (3 of 3) [CW-2024/2025]

In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this civil writ petition is

disposed of in following terms as agreed by the learned counsel

for the respective parties:-

1. The order dated 31.07.2024 is quashed and set

aside.

2. The trial Court is expected to decide the pending

application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955

expeditiously.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

This writ petition reflects a disturbing fact. Vide order

impugned dated 31.07.2024, the BoR has allowed the revision

petition even without issuing notice to the respondents therein.

This Court comes across a number of such cases on and off

wherein, the revision petitions are being allowed/partly allowed by

the BoR even without issuing notice to the respondents. This

approach is highly objectionable and unwarranted as it militates

against the cardinal principle of natural justice.

In view thereof, this Court requested the assistance of the

learned Advocate General and with his able assistance, the

following direction is issued:-

1. The Registrar, BoR is directed to convey to the

Chairperson/all members not to allow/partly allow the

revision petitions, without issuing notice to the other

side.

It is made clear that violation of the aforesaid direction in

future may be viewed seriously.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/59

(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:15:37 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)