KANHAIYA MARBLES PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 45/99 filed by the State of Rajasthan. The petition has been filed on 5.1.1999 and affidavit in support of petition was sworn by one Hari Narain Paliwal Tehsildar alleging himself to be officer In -charge of the case. The order under challenge in the writ petition were orders dated 6.3.1997 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur in support of the present appellant setting aside the order of the Collector, Rajsamand dated 19.12.1996 for refusing conversion of the land in question. Against this order dated 6.3.1997 appeal No. 119/97 was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer which was dismissed on 14.10.1997 and a review application against the same No. 2/98 was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 20.5.1998. Thereafter about 7 months the writ petition in question has been filed by the Tehsildar. The learned single Judge without going into the details of the case by order dated 8.3.1999 though it to remand the case back to the Collector for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with the law. After giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant as according to the learned single Judge it would served the ends of justice. Aggrieved with that order the present appellant has filed this appeal amongst other particular ground that was taken in appeal was that State Govt. has already passed an order to circumvent the order passed by the State Govt. the writ petition was preferred the State Govt. Which was incompetent, and that material fact has been concealed by the petitioners. During the course of hearing of the appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant was also produced copy of the order dated 5.2.1998 addressed to the Collector, Rajsamand directing him to comply with the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 6.3.1997. That is to say this order was conveying the decision of the Government after the appeal of the State has been rejected by the Board in October, 1997 to accept and comply with that order of Revenue Appellate Authority allowing the application of the applicant for conversion of land in question. Thereafter this petition has been filed which appears to be by Collector and Tehsildar without the Authority form the State Govt. In view of that the court made the following order dated 4.2.2000.' During course of arguments, it is brought to our notice that the State Government, respondent No. 1 as passed the orders to comply with the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority but the Tehsildar and the Collector have taken decision to contest the appeal. In order to know, the stand if the State Government, as to whether State Government wants to contest this appeal, we grant two weeks time to the learned Counsel.

(3.) IN these circumstances we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petition when filed as an officer incharge was wholly incompetent and relief could have been granted on the basis of that petition this appeal deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. The order is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.