CHETAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the impugned order of ejectment from the land in question passed by the Tehsildar on 31.3.1995 (Annex. -1) the petitioner filed appeal and also made an application for stay; but, the stay application was rejected. Suppressing that fact of filing appeal and rejection of the stay application, The petitioner also filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the impugned order at Annex. -1 passed by the Tehsildar. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue solely on the ground of suppression of material fact viz., that though the appeal was pending and the stay application filed in appeal was also rejected yet without disclosing the same the revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. This order is at Annex. -11. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order Annex. -1 passed by the Tehsildar of ejectment and impugned order Annex. -11 dated 14.2.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Kalla vehemently submitted that the Board of Revenue committed an error in dismissing the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner could not have filed revision when the appeal was maintainable against the impugned order at Annex. - 1. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hanuman Singh v. Board of Revenue and Ors. reported in 1984 RRD 520. Similarly, he has relied upon the judgment of the Board of Revenue in the case of Bhanwar Lal v. Bhabhoot Mal and Anr. reported in 1991 RRD 485.

(3.) THE facts of the present case are totally different. The revision petition was not dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 14.2.1996 (Annex. -11) on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal; but, it has dismissed the revision petition on the ground of suppression of material fact from the Court. The Board of Revenue has clearly stated at page 4 of its order that against the impugned order at Annex. -1 dated 31.3.1995 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority along with an application for stay but the stay application was rejected, and during the pendency of that appeal, the revision petition was filed by the petitioner suppressing the fact of filing of appeal before the appellate authority. On this ground of suppression of material fact the revision petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue; and, not on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal. Thus both the aforesaid judgments - one of this Court and one of the Board of Revenue - cited by Mr. Kalla have no application at all to the facts of this case.