JYOTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Mangalchand (now deceased) and other plaintiffs, filed a suit against defendant-Kisturchand and others under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Collector, Bikaner (Case No. 105/2011). The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 30/12/2011. It later emerged that one of the parties, Suganaram, had expired on 21/1/2008, yet the judgment was passed without bringing his legal heirs on record. The plaintiffs filed a first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Appeal No. 37/2012), in which a dead person was impleaded as a party.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, Kamal Kishore, Magharam, and respondent No.1, Kisturchand, expired. No application for substitution of their legal representatives was filed. Despite this, the Revenue Appellate Authority proceeded to allow the appeal and passed an order dtd. 2/6/2023. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.2 preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide order dtd. 27/6/2023, set aside both the judgments namely, the order passed by the Assistant Collector dtd. 30/12/2011 and the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dtd. 2/6/2023 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after impleading the legal heirs of the deceased parties. Petitioner No.5 thereafter filed a review petition against the said order before the Board of Revenue; however, the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 17/10/2023 (Annexure-7). Consequently, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition challenging both the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, i.e., the order dtd. 27/6/2023 (Annexure-5) and the review order dtd. 17/10/2023 (Annexure-7).