ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred against the order dt. 27.05.2005 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'/'the Board of Revenue') rejecting the application moved on behalf of the petitioners for restoration of Revision Petition No. 116/96/TA/Sriganganagar that was dismissed on 04.04.2005 for want for prosecution.

(2.) THE background aspects of the matter are that an application moved by the petitioners under Section 15AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 claiming khatedari rights in the agriculture land comprised in Khasra No. 3 at village Dhaba, Tehsil Anupgarh came to be rejected by the Tehsildar, Anupgarh by the order dt. 04.07.1994 with the findings that the land in question, now comprised in Murraba Nos. 23/24 and 24/17 of Chak 4NM, had been in cultivatory possession of different persons; and that the petitioners or their predecessor were not in continuous possession thereof. The order so passed by the Tehsildar was maintained and affirmed by the Collector, Sriganganagar while rejecting the appeal (No. 10/1995) taken by the petitioners by the order dt. 28.05.1996. It may be noticed that another person Rajendra Krishna Khanna, who claimed his rights in the land in question, was ordered to be joined as respondent No. 2 in the said appeal before the Collector, Sriganganagar.

(3.) THE very next day, i.e., on 05.04.2005, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners before the Board seeking restoration of the revision petition that was, according to the petitioners, dismissed for default in appearance. The petitioners submitted that they were represented by the advocate Shri Vijay Soni who was present before the Board on 04.04.2005 but remained engaged in arguing Appeal No. 98/2003 before the Division Bench of the Board; and when the revision petition was called out for hearing, the said advocate Shri Vijay Soni personally informed the reader of the Court about his engagement before the Division Bench. It was further submitted that the petitioners' advocate appeared before the Bench concerned at 12.30 p.m. after conclusion of his matter before the Division Bench but was informed that the revision petition had already been dismissed in default and the learned member of the Board pointed out that the order -sheet had already been signed. It was submitted that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner or their counsel; that the petition was dismissed in default per mistake; and that there were sufficient reasons wherefor Shri Vijay Soni could not appear before the learned single member. The application was filed with the affidavits of the petitioner Ashok Kumar and the said advocate Shri Vijay Soni.