JUGAL KISHORE Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred to challenge order dated 19.7.2006 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2434/2005. The learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ giving challenge to order dated 18.3.2004 passed by learned Revenue Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No.LR/99/2000/Hanumangarh affirming order dated 20.6.2000 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh.

(2.) In brief, factual matrix of the case is that a right of path was settled by the Deputy Commissioner (Colonization) under an order dated 27.5.1964. An application preferred to review the order dated 27.5.1964 was also rejected on 24.5.1966 by the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction. Subsequent thereto a fresh review petition (Misc. Case No.2/1996) was filed before the Collector, Hanumangarh, that came to be accepted under the judgment dated 07.1999. The review petition aforesaid was decided without examining record giving rise to the order dated 27.5.1964 and also without hearing the parties effected. The parties effected, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, that came to be accepted under an order dated 20.6.2000. The Revenue Appellate Authority while accepting the appeal noticed that the scope to entertain a review petition is quite narrow and the Collector, Hanumangarh under the order impugned travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested, as much as the review petition was barred by limitation and that was never condoned, no notice was given to the parties effected and further that even record of the case was not called for. A second appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue also came to be rejected under the order dated 18.3.2004. The Board of Revenue while confirming the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority observed that the Collector committed a material irregularity while invoking the review jurisdiction without calling the parties effected and also without examining the record on basis of which order dated 27.5.1964 was passed. The challenge given to the order passed by the Board of Revenue also failed on dismissal of the petition for writ.

(3.) In appeal the argument advanced is that all the courts below failed to appreciate that the order dated 27.5.1964 was bad as the alternative and more suitable path was available to the private respondents and further no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant-petitioners before granting the path under the order referred above.