KADU Vs. AMA JANTA VILLAGE JAITPURA DHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 27/11/2017 and the order dtd. 13/2/2020 passed by the Additional Collector, Gangapur City and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short 'the Board') respectively, the instant writ petition has been filed.

(2.) By passing the order dtd. 27/11/2017, the Additional Collector, Gangapur City has taken on record the written statement as well as the counter claim filed by the respondents. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners submitted a revision petition and the same was dismissed by the Board vide impugned order dtd. 13/2/2020.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit for declaration of Khatedari rights, correction of entries and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioners against the respondents way back in the year 1992 and the same was decreed ex-parte on 17/9/1996. Counsel submits that the said judgment was challenged by the respondents by way of filing an appeal before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority (for short 'the RAA') and the same was allowed on 31/7/2003 and the matter was remitted to the Additional Collector to decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Counsel submits that even after remand of the matter in the year 2003, the respondents were sitting over the matter for about 14 years and after a delay of 14 years, the written statement was filed on 2/8/2017, which has been allowed to be taken on record by the Additional Collector. Counsel submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to take the proceedings of the suit in a casual way and their written statements as well as the counter claim should not have been taken on record after a lapse of more than 14 years, hence, the learned Additional Collector has committed an error in doing so, by passing the impugned order dtd. 27/11/2017. Counsel submits that the Revisional Court has also committed an error in not appreciating above arguments, while rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide impugned judgment dtd. 13/2/2020. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, both the orders dtd. 27/11/2017 and 13/2/2020 are liable to be quashed and set aside.