NETRAM Vs. REVENUE BOARD OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged two orders, namely order dated 31.07.2004 and the order dated 18.01.2005 both passed by the Board of Revenue.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that on 02.11.1995, the Assistant Collector, Bansur, Alwar decided to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner's father, Gordhan who was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the civil proceedings. According to the petitioners, the notices were never served upon his father. Subsequently, his father expired and yet a decree has been passed against Gordhan. The petitioners moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C for setting aside the ex-parte order. However, vide order dated 24.06.1999, the learned Assistant Collector dismissed the said application.2 Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA", for short). But vide order dated 13.11.2000, the RAA dismissed the appeal. Subsequently,the petitioners filed a revision before the Board. However, vide order dated 31.07.2005, the Board rejected the revision. The petitioner filed a review petition. Vide order dated 18.01.2005, the review petition, too, was rejected.

(3.) A bare perusal of the order dated 31.07.2004, passed by the Board clearly reveals that according to the record, the notices were duly served upon the petitioner's father, Gordhan on 25.09.1993, whereas he died subsequently on 18.06.1994. Thus, he had the knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings. Once a judicial finding has been given about the fact that the notices were duly served upon Gordhan, the same cannot be disturbed by this Court in its jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India.