SAKTI SINGH Vs. SMT. RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." -John Henry Wigmore Every person in India has the right to a fair trial. This is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This, in essence, is what makes cross- examination important. Cross-examination is a fundamental component of the legal process and plays a pivotal role in the Indian Legal System. Cross-examination allows the rival party to the litigation to thoroughly analyze and challenge the evidence brought forward by the other side's witness. Cross-examination is a statutory right and denying the opportunity for cross- examination might violate the fundamental right to a fair trial. Cross-examination seeks out the truth. Separation of lies from the truth is essential during cross-examination. Instant case is one of the glaring example of its own kind where without affording any opportunity to the defendants, the suit was decided against them on the false pretext that their counsel had waived the right to cross-examination by claiming that the earlier cross-examination done with the witnesses was sufficient, despite the fact that no such cross-examination was ever conducted with any of the witnesses during the proceedings before the Revenue Courts or Sub-Divisional Officer. 1. The Revenue Courts in India play a pivotal role in adjudicating disputes related to land ownership, tenancy rights, mutation, partition, declaration of khatedari rights and right of way, land revenue, etc. These Courts are presided over by the administrative officers rather than judicially trained Judges, who often function as the first point of access to justice for millions of rural citizens and rustic villagers residing in rural areas. However, their rights are hampered by procedural delays, due to inadequate legal knowledge among the officers posted in these Revenue Courts and lack of standardization. The instant case is a glaring example of procedural lapse occurred in the present case where the suit, filed by the respondents, has been decreed without affording the petitioners an opportunity to cross-examine the respondents' witnesses.

(2.) By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dtd. 7/10/2020 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred as 'the Board') by which the judgment dtd. 20/6/2019 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred as 'the RAA') has been quashed and set aside.

(3.) By passing the judgment dtd. 20/6/2019, the RAA quashed and set aside the judgment dtd. 11/5/2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short 'the SDO') by which the suit filed by the respondents was decreed. The RAA quashed and set aside the judgment passed by the SDO on the ground that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the petitioners. Hence, the matter was remitted to the SDO by granting opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioners and for fresh adjudication of the matter, on its merits.