RAMBABU SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the judgment dtd. 18/10/2019 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, "BoR") whereby, the appeal no.TA/18/449/Jaipur preferred by the respondent no.2- Jaipur Development Authority, against the judgment dtd. 29/5/2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for brevity, "RAA"), Jaipur dismissing the appeal no.277/2016 against the judgment dtd. 23/11/2015 passed by the Court of Assistant Collector, Jaipur City-I in Revenue Suit no.182/2010 decreeing the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction, has been allowed as also against the judgment dtd. 23/2/2022 passed by the BoR dismissing the Review Petition no.TA/2019/6771/Jaipur filed by the petitioners.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction qua the land of Khasra no.1/84 measuring 10 Bigha Village Dharampura Tehsil and District Jaipur on the premise that their late father Kanhaiya Lal was in possession of the land and on his application, the Sub- Tehsildar, Kalwar, vide its orders dtd. 16/3/1983, 10/10/1983 and 1/10/1984, entered him as "Shikmi Kashtkar" of the aforesaid land and its subsequent mutation in favour of Jaipur Development Authority was bad in law. The suit was decreed by the Court of Assistant Collector vide its judgment dtd. 23/11/2015 and the appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent no.2, the Jaipur Development Authority came to be dismissed by the RAA vide its judgment dtd. 29/5/2017 on the ground of limitation. The second appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 against dismissal of their appeal, has been allowed by the BoR vide its judgment dtd. 18/10/2019 and the review petition filed thereagainst by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dtd. 23/2/2022.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners made two-fold submissions while assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dtd. 18/10/2019. Firstly, he submitted that the BoR erred in allowing the second appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 without setting aside the judgment passed by the RAA dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel submitted that the BoR has only, in its para 12 of the judgment, condoned the delay in preferring the second appeal but, nowhere recorded a finding that dismissal of the first appeal by the RAA on limitation was bad in law.