BEGHRAJ S/O PRABHU DAYAL, BY CASTE BRAHAMIN, R/O MOHALLA HOLI TEEBA, TIJARA, ALWAR. Vs. BALVEER SINGH S/O SULTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the petitioner filed an appeal before Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar (for short 'the RAA') challenging judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Kishangarh Bass, whereby suit filed by one Sultan Singh for division of holding along with prayer of injunction was decreed. The petitioner was not a party to that suit and as soon as the aforesaid judgment passed by the SDO came into his knowledge, he filed the appeal before the RAA. The RAA vide its order dated 07.01.2010 passed an ad-interim order in favour of the petitioner. The respondents filed an application under Sec. 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955(for short 'the Act') before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan at Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue'). The Board of revenue vide its order dated 18.09.2014 quashed and set aside aforesaid order dated 07.01.2010 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41, Rule 21 read with Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying for rehearing and quashing and setting aside of aforesaid order but the Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.12.2014 dismissed the application of the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the power under Sec. 212 of the Act which was exercised by the Board of Revenue on 18.09.2014 was not tenable as it was exercised against order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the RAA, which order was appellable/revisable as per law and the same could not have been entertained under Sec. 221 of the Act. It is argued that power under Sec. 221 of the Act cannot be invoked where the appeal/revision lies against the order. The power can be exercised when there is no remedy provided under the law. It is argued that order dated 18.09.2014 has been passed by the Board of Revenue without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner whereas it is settled principal of law that before passing any adverse order, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the effected party. Further, the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside of aforesaid order and rehearing has also wrongly been dismissed by the Board of Revenue.

(3.) Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 to 4 opposed the writ petition and argued that power under Sec. 221 of the Act has rightly been exercised by the Board of Revenue. The RAA ought to have first decided application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act before passing any ad-interim order in favour of the petitioner. The appellate authority ought to have decided the question of locus of the petitioner to file the appeal before passing any interim order in his favour. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.