JUGAL KISHORE Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, by way of this writ petition have sought the relief inter-alia to quash and set aside the judgment of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer passed on 14. 6. 1990 (Ann. 6), 11. 10. 1990 (Ann. 7), 17. 9. 1998 (Ann. 11) and 22. 7. 1999 (Ann. 12) and that of Revenue Appellate Authority passed on 26. 12. 1994 (Ann. 10 ). THE petitioners further prayed for restoring judgments dated 30. 3. 84 of the Assistant Collector (Trainee) Kota (Ann. 3), and dated 26. 10. 90 of the Assistant Collector (HQR) Kota (Ann. 8 ).

(2.) THE facts leading to challenge of the impugned orders, referred to above, briefly stated, are that in their Suit No. 83/90 for permanent injunction filed under Sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") before the Assistant Collector (HQ) Kota the petitioners (Jugal Kishore & Others ( filed an application under Sec. 212 of the Act, for temporary injunction in respect of an agricultural land measuring 9 bighas 13 biswas of Khasra No. 58 situated in village Nottana Tehsil Ladpura (District Kota) inter-alia claiming themselves as recorded Khatedar and their possession over it. On this application for temporary injunction upon considering reply of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to the application for temporary injunction and considering their rival claims ad interim temporary injunction was granted on 29. 6. 90 as prayed therein by the petitioners and this ad interim order was made absolute by grant of temporary injunction till final disposal of suit for permanent injunction, by order dated 26. 10. 90 of the Assistant Collector (HQR) Kota (Ann. 8), against which present respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Ratanlal & Kanhaiyalal) preferred their appeal No. 157/91 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Ganesh Meena appearing for Shri S. N. Pareek, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, contended that the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the judgments having been passed in a suit proceedings under Sec. 183a of the Act long back in the year 1990 which had attained its finality because these judgments (Ann. 5, 6 & 7) have since never been challenged before this Court and cannot be now permitted to be challenged in this writ petition after inordinate delay and latches that too by way of subsequent and distinct proceedings under Sec. 212 of the Act for grant of Temporary Injunction and under Sec. 144 CPC for restitution of possession in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 over the land in dispute.