Bajrang Lal vs Manalal Morya And Ors

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24 th August 2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the earlier order dated 5th March, 2020 has been recalled.

Learned counsel Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff, submitted that initially in the Revenue Suit No.67/2015, an application filed Under Order 7 Rule 11 Read with Section 151 of CPC was decided by SDO Kishangarh, Ajmer and it was ordered that the suit was not maintainable before the Revenue Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order dated 04.01.2017, an appeal was filed before Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer, under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") and the appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue vide order dated 05.03.2020 considered the appeal of the petitioner alongwith the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while summoning the record, the Board of Revenue also passed the order on the stay application and the status quo, with regard to the property in question, was to be maintained in respect of the possession as well as revenue record. The Board of the Revenue further issued notices to the parties in the appeal and had posted the mater on 15.04.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application was filed by the respondents under Section 224 of Act of 1955 to recall the order dated 05.03.2020.

Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue, by the impugned order dated 24.08.2020, has allowed the said application on the ground that initial order dated 05.03.2020 was passed without keeping in mind the nature of land, as subject land, was said to be converted into Abadi land and the land was not used for agricultural purposes.

Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has recorded a finding that while initial order was passed on 05.03.2020, the said fact did not come into notice of the Board and additionally the stay application filed by the petitioner, before the Appellant Authority was rejected twice.

Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue could not have recalled the order, as the earlier order was passed after considering all the facts and as such, if the Board of Revenue wanted to hear the parties on the stay application, the proper opportunity should have been given to all the parties and considering the parameters for grant of interim injunction, proper order could have been passed.

Learned counsel submitted that the judicial order, which is passed by any Court, pre-supposes application of mind and consideration of relevant facts.

Learned counsel submits that the application filed for recalling the order dated 05.03.2020 could not have resulted into the recalling the order and the Board of the Revenue is always free to pass the fresh order after hearing the parties on the stay application.

Learned counsel Mr. Rahul Agrawal and Mr. Himanshu Sharma appear for the respondents-caveator and raised preliminary objections about maintainability of the writ petition.

Learned counsel, on merits, submitted that the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality while passing the order dated 24.08.2020. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question is no more an agricultural land and since the suit itself is not maintainable and further, the appeal was also dismissed, there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to pass the order dated 05.03.2020 and as such, the Board of Revenue had ample power to recall the order passed erroneously without taking into consideration the relevant facts, like nature of land and rejection of the stay application filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

This Court finds that the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue on 05.03.2020 had passed order of maintaining status quo in respect of the land as well as revenue record and also summoned the record of the court below.

This Court finds that the Board of Revenue while passing order dated 24.08.2020 has erroneously recorded a finding that nature of the land was not in the notice of the Court and as such, erroneously the earlier order dated 05.03.2020 was passed on a wrong premise.

This Court further finds that the issue with regard to the grant of interim injunction can be considered by the Court at initial stage as well as after parties put in appearance before the Court concerned.

This Court finds that the once the respondents had put in appearance before the Board of Revenue and they have objections either about maintainability of the appeal/limitation or any other objection for grant of any interim order, the proper course was to afford opportunity of hearing to the parties and to hear on the stay application.

This Court finds that the court below has, in fact, gone into merits of the matter while recalling the earlier order dated 05.03.2020. The order has not been secured by the petitioner by concealing any fact and as such the grounds, which was taken in the appeal must have persuaded the Board to pass the order dated 05.03.2020. The reasoning assigned by the Board of Revenue is not legally sustainable for recalling of the earlier order and accordingly the order dated 24.08.2020 is set aside.

This Court directs the Board of Revenue to hear all the parties concerned for grant of interim relief on the next date, which is already fixed on 30.09.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lokesh Sharma submitted that the petitioner has serious apprehension that the respondents may alienate the property during pendency of the proceedings before the Board of Revenue and as such, this Court may protect right the petitioner.

This court, as an interim measure, directs that the parties will maintain status quo till the matter is decided by the Board of Revenue on the stay application.

This Court further observes that whatever has been recorded in the present matter, the said observation/findings will not influence the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue will be free to decide the matter on its own merits, as per law.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.