1
15
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 511/2000.
Bapu Lal & Ors. Vs. B.O.R., Ajmer & Ors.
..
Date of Order :: 2nd February 2010.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Sanjay Mathur, for the appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel.
Mr. Ravi Bhansali ]
Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat ], for the respondents.
.....
BY THE COURT:
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order
dated 22.03.2000 as passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183/1994.
While considering the matter on 22.03.2000, the learned
Single Judge observed that it were an old petition of the year
1994 and listed for early hearing but no one was present either
for the petitioner or for the respondents; that the petitioner
was enjoying ex parte stay order; and that the learned counsel
for the petitioner had not shown the courtesy even to make a
mention. The learned Single Judge further observed that in
the ordinary circumstances, the Court would have dismissed
the matter in the absence of the learned counsel for the
petitioner but that would result in moving of the application and
then, restoration of the petition and, therefore, it was
appropriate to deal with the matter on merits.
2
However, thereafter, the learned Single Judge merely
observed that the petition had been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India having a narrow and limited scope;
and that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned
orders as passed by the authorities particularly when all the
Courts below concurrently found against the petitioners. The
learned Single Judge further observed that the petition was
also required to be dismissed as the petitioners had not joined
the State of Rajasthan as party; and with such observations
proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.
It is noticed that the writ petition was filed essentially in
challenge to the orders passed on 16.08.1993 (Annex.17) and
09.06.1988 (Annex.15) by the Board of Revenue in the
reference proceedings whereby the entries made by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Mandalgarh on 14.08.1981 in favour of the
petitioners-appellants in the revenue records were set aside.
The petitioners had stated the grounds in the writ petition, inter
alia, on the very competence of the reference proceedings.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it is difficult to make
out that the merits of the case were considered by the learned
Single Judge.
In the totality of the circumstances, we consider it
appropriate that the matter be remanded for consideration
afresh by the learned Single Judge of this Court. However,
the facts cannot be ignored that the petitioners-appellants did
not appear when the case was called out and not even a
3
mention was made with the result that the writ petition was
decided in absence; and now, the matter is required to be
remanded that would elongate the life of the litigation for
which, primarily, the petitioners-appellants are required to be
held responsible.
In the aforesaid view of the matter and the given
circumstances, we consider it appropriate to saddle the
petitioners-appellants with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand). The parties have fairly agreed that
the amount of costs shall be deposited by the petitioners-
appellants with the State Legal Services Authority.
Accordingly, this special appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated above; the impugned order dated 22.03.2000 is set
aside; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183/1994 shall stand
restored to its number subject to the condition that an amount
of Rs. 2000/- towards costs shall be deposited by the
petitioner-appellants with the State Legal Services Authority,
Jodhpur within 30 days from today and the receipt of deposit
of the costs shall be produced in the Registry. Upon the
petitioners-appellants carrying out compliance, the writ
petition be restored to its number and be placed for
consideration afresh before the concerned Bench.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (JAGDISH BHALLA),CJ.
/Mohan/