SUDERSHAN PAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the pendency of the case before the Sub divisional Officer, Amer (`sdo' for short) for almost twenty years, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim that on 15-7-1960, the then Maharaja Kumar Prithviraj Singh @ Prithvi Singh son of late Highness Man Singh-II Jaipur leased out certain lands to the petitioners in Khasra Nos. 190, 259, 173 and 184 in village khawarani, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. Since Maharaja kumar Prithviraj Singh was Jagirdar of the said area, he was empowered to grant lease of the said land to the petitioners. Ever since 1960, the petitioners have in possession of the said land. The land in dispute was also shown in possession of the petitioners in revenue record, namely Khasra Girdawari of Svt. 2019 and 2031. Since in the intervening period between 2019 and 2031, Khasra girdawaris were not prepared, therefore, there is no revenue record for those years. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 89, 91, 92a and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the SDO Amer. However, vide order dated 24-3-1986, the learned SDO dismissed the suit. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority-II Jaipur (`the RAA' for short' ). Vide judgment dated 8-5-1989, the RAA quashed and set aside the order dated 24-3-1986 and remanded the case to the SDO. It is pertinent to note that in the said order, the RAA made certain observations in favour of the petitioners, namely, that the land was leased out to the petitioners by the then Jagirdar Maharaja Kumar prithviraj Singh, in the revenue record the petitioners were shown as khudkast, lastly any transfer made prior to 1970 is considered valid under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding act,1973. However, despite the fact that the case was remanded back to the SDO as far back as 1989, the learned SDO has not decided the case. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) MR. Deepak Asopa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that it is the legal duty of the SDO to decide the case as expeditiously as possible. However, despite the pendency of the case for the last twenty years, the SDO has not decided the case. Therefore, a grave injustice is being done to the petitioners. After all, justice delayed is justice denied.