Manish Chandak vs Pukhraj And Ors

The instant special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the appellant Manish Chandak, being aggrieved of the judgment dated 04.01.2019 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12692/2016.

The petitioner preferred the aforesaid writ petition for assailing the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the Second Appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, setting aside the decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur in Revenue Suits Nos.55/2002 and 157/2004 and the remanding the matter for fresh consideration was dismissed.

We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by Mr. M.S. Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing the appellants, and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the orders passed by the courts below.

Ex facie, we are duly satisfied that the petitioner has no locus so as to challenge the orders impugned. Neither was the petitioner a party in any of the proceedings before the courts below nor did he make any endeavour to be impleaded therein. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that his father Shri Om Prakash was contesting the suits in the capacity of legal heir of Mangilal, whereas, his brother Dhiraj was contesting the proceedings as a beneficiary of the will executed by Shri Mangilal.

We are, thus, of the firm opinion that the learned Single Bench of this court rightly held that the petitioner could not place anything on record suggesting as to how he acquired the right to he heard in the matter. Learned Single Bench was absolutely on the spot while observing that the Board of Revenue should not have entertained the appeal of the petitioner on merits without his being impleaded as a party to the proceedings in the suit decided by the trial court or in the appeal. It was observed, and rightly so, by the learned Single Bench that the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner was barred by limitation, but the Board of Revenue erroneously entertained the appeal without even considering the application preferred by the writ petitioner for condonation of delay.

In this background, we are of the firm opinion that since the appellant herein, the writ petitioner before the Single Bench, was not entitled to have his appeal entertained by the Board of Revenue, there could not have been cause to entertain the writ petition as well. Hence, we find no reason to interfere in the absolutely justified judgment dated 04.01.2019 rendered by the learned Single Bench, which ex facie does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.