State Of Rajasthan vs Jairam And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner â€" State aggrieved by order dated 26.4.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, the revision

petition filed by the petitioner State against the order dated 17.5.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, has been rejected.

The respondents filed an appeal against the order dated 3.2.1983, which came to be decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 11.4.2016,

whereby, the appeal was rejected as barred by limitation.

Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue.

The Board of Revenue by its order dated 30.3.2017 remanded back the matter to the Revenue Appellate Authority and Revenue Appellate Authority

decided the matter on 17.5.2017 and while accepting the appeal, remanded back the matter to the SDO while setting aside the order dated 3.2.1983.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue.

The Board of Revenue by its order impugned came to the conclusion that the scope of revision petition was limited and once the Revenue Appellate

Authority has come to the conclusion that the matter was required to be reexamined by the SDO and remanded back the matter, no case for

interference was made out and rejected the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue were not justified in remanding

back the matter / dismissing the revision petition, inasmuch as, the facts were clear, wherein, the issue was challenged after over 30 years and that no

material was produced for seeking condonation and, therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue were not justified in setting

aside the order / decide the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The Revenue Appellate Authority by its order, after recording reasons, has come to the conclusion that the issue required consideration by the SDO

and, therefore, ordered for remand.

The Board of Revenue after reexamining the entire issue besides coming to the conclusion that the scope of interference in a revision was limited, also

came to the conclusion that there was no jurisdictional error and consequently refused interference.

The order passed by the Board of Revenue appears to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case and no case for interference is made out.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, the SDO is directed to deal with the matter with utmost expedition and

ensure that the matter is decided within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the said authority.