Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT BALBIR KAUR versus BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT BALBIR KAUR v BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS - CW Case No. 550 of 1997 [2007] RD-RJ 972 (20 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.550/1997

SMT. BALBIR KAUR V/s THE BOARD OF REVENUE & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER 20.2.2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

None present for the petitioner.

Shri B.P. Pareek for the respondents.

The controversy raised in this writ petition is confined merely to the appointment of receiver in a suit filed u/s 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before

S.D.O., Sri-Karanpur, District Sri-Ganganagar. The order dated 4.12.89 appointing the receiver was upheld by the

Revisional Authority by order dated 12.12.1989. When the matter was taken up in further appeal before the Board of

Revenue, the Board by its order dated 27.3.90 remanded the matter back to the Revenue Appellate Authority. Further appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was dismissed on 24.7.96 and this order is under challenge in the present writ petition was before this court.

This matter was listed on 16.11.2006 but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was again listed on 19.2.2007, but again none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was adjourned. Today, i.e. 20.2.2007, also none appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the original suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and his successive appeals there against before the Appellate

Authority and the Board of Revenue respectively were also dismissed and thereafter the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the principal seat of this Court at

Jodhpur, was also dismissed. Now, special appeal against the Judgment dated 21.2.2000 in Writ Petition No.391/2000 is pending. In the facts of the case, nothing remains to be decided in the present writ petition because of the subsequent developments.

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Mohammad Rafiq),J.

Chauhan/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.