KAMLA DEVI Vs. SUNDER DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on 16.11.2015 aggrieved against order dated 10.04.2014 (Annexure -8) passed by the Board of Revenue and has sought setting aside of the order to the extent the Board of Revenue has accepted the application of respondent No. 4 under Order 22, Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure without impleading petitioners as party and without providing opportunity of hearing; further relief has been sought for setting aside of the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by Tehsildar, Jodhpur whereby, the name of respondent No. 4 has been ordered to be mutated qua the land in question.

(2.) The petitioners, who are legal representatives of late Mohan Ram have sought the above quoted relief essentially raising grievance regarding the application filed by respondent No.4 Asha Ram during the pendency of revision petition No. 3350/2013 before the Board of Revenue, wherein, the revision petition was filed by Mohan Ram along with five others. The said Mohan Ram died during the pendency of the revision petition and an application under Order 22, Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure was filed by respondent No.4 Asha Ram on the strength of a Will dated 24.05.2011 said to have been executed by Mohan Ram in his favour. The application was accepted by the Board of Revenue and Asha Ram was impleaded as party petitioner No.4/1 in the revision petition, where after the revision petition was heard on merits and the same was allowed and the order dated 05.08.2000 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur was set aside and the original mutation dated 24.11.1995 was restored.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were neither issued notice nor were heard before passing of the order on application filed by respondent No.4 under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, which was filed based on the Will and the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity to contest the said Will and to get impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Mohan Ram, who was petitioners' husband/father and, therefore, the order dated 10.04.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside in this regard.