High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SURJA RAM JAT & ORS v STATE & ORS - CW Case No. 04330 of 2004  RD-RJ 650 (8 December 2004)
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4330/2004 DR(J)
Surja Ram and ors. vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Date : 8.12.2004
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The office has raised an objection that the petitioners have not submitted the certified copy of the order dated 16.2.65. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not challenging the order dated 16.2.65 in this writ petition and it has been placed on the record for perusal of the Court so that the controversy may be made clear. In view of the above, the office objection is over- ruled and filing of the certified copy of the order dated 16.2.65 is dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on merit that an order was passed on 16.2.65 and it was sought to be executed after 20 years. The petitioner challenged the said action and ultimately approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The petitioners' writ petition was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 9.1.96 on the ground that the petitioners should have challenged the order dated 16.2.65. Finding this position, the petitioners preferred an appeal to challenge the order dated 16.2.65. This appeal was filed on 27.9.97 thereby, there was a delay of 32 years in challenging the order dated 16.2.65. The Revenue
Appellate Authority condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, but on revision by the aggrieved party, the Board of Revenue set aside the order of Revenue
Appellate Authority condoning the delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a matter relating to a dispute about the right of way and since the petitioner was pursuing the remedy after getting knowledge of the order dated 16.2.65 in Court upto 9.1.96, therefore, the delay should have been condoned.
I have perused the facts of the case. The allegation of the petitioners is that they had no knowledge of the order dated 16.2.65 as no notice was served upon them before passing the said order. However, when the petitioners got the knowledge in the year 1987, they challenged the action of the respondents by which they sought the execution of the order dated 16.2.65. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioners' writ petition was dismissed by this Court as back as on 9.1.96. The petitioners did not submit any appeal till 27.9.97 for good 1 year & 9 months and, therefore, this shows gross negligence of the petitioners in challenging the order dated 16.2.65 knowing it well that they were already having an order against them almost about 32 years by that time.
In view of the above reason only, I do not find that the Board of Revenue has committed any error in holding that the Revenue Appellate Authority committed serious error in condoning the delay in such a matter.
Accordingly, I don't find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.