IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
O R D E R
(1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5621/2011
RAM SHARAN MODI
Vs.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1959/2011
RAM SHARAN MODI
Vs.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1960/2011
RAM SHARAN MODI
Vs.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5622/2011
RAM SHARAN MODI
Vs.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5623/2011
RAM SHARAN MODI
Vs.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5624/2011
RAM SHARAN MODI
Vs.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(7) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5625/2011
RAM SHARAN MODI
Vs.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN & ORS.
&
(8) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5626/2011
RAM SHARAN MODI
Vs.
THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN & ORS.
DATE: 25.08.2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Pathak, for the respondents.
****
Since common point is involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the writ petitions are being disposed off, finally.
2. For convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5621/2011 are being referred.
3. Plaintiff/respondent No.4 Smt. Suraj Bai filed a revenue suit under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (for short ‘the Act’) for permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of disputed land in the Court of S.D.O., Ramganjmandi along with an application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act to restrain defendant/petitioner Ram Sharan Modi from interferring in the peaceful possession of the disputed land of plaintiff during pendency of the suit. The suit as well application for temporary injunction, both, were contested by defendant. Learned S.D.O., Ramganjmandi vide its order dated 31.08.2009, allowed the application under Section 212 of the Act and confirmed the interim stay order dated 10.06.2009 till the disposal of the suit, whereby defendant was restrained from interferring in the peaceful possession of plaintiff in respect of dispute land.
4. Being aggrieved with the same, defendant preferred an appeal but the same was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 25.01.2010. Thereafter, defendant preferred revision petition before the Revenue Board, but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28.09.2010. Hence, defendant has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the above referred orders passed by the S.D.O., Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Board granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.4 during pendency of Revenue Suit.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he was granted mining lease in the disputed land by the competent authority on furnishing ‘no objection certificate’ of the recorded tenant of the land, he applied for renewal of mining lease, the competent authority asked the petitioner to submit again the ‘no objection certificate’ from the recorded tenant of the land, whereas there was no necessity of furnishing ‘no objection certificate’ again at the time of renewal of the mining lease. He further submitted that Principal Seat of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5913/2006- Ritu Raj Vs. State & Ors., decided on 12.02.2009, took a view that where khatedari rights in a land are purchased, wherein a quarry licence had already been granted and the land in question was falling in a sanctioned mining area, the purchaser is bound by no objection certificate given by the seller or the original Khatedar of the land. He further submitted that the Ritu Raj’s judgment was referred and relied upon by petitioner before Revenue Board, but the Revenue Board neither referred, nor considered the same. He, therefore, submitted that since the matter was covered by Ritu Raj’s judgment (supra), therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to file review petition before the Revenue Board on the basis of judgment of Ritu Raj’s case (supra), in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that he has no objection, in case petitioner is allowed to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to file review petitions before the Revenue Board, but he opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner that present case is fully covered by the judgment of Principal Seat of this Court in Ritu Raj Vs. State & Ors.(supra), which in his submissions is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He also submitted that certain orders have been passed in respect of disputed land by authority/Courts, which may be allowed to be referred or placed on record before Revenue Board by him.
7. Be that as it may, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow the prayer of the learned counsel for petitioner and permit him to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to file review petitions before the Revenue Board in accordance with law with a further direction that in case, judgment of Ritu Raj Vs. State & Ors.(supra) is referred before the Revenue Board, then the same will be considered after hearing both the parties.
8. With the aforesaid observations, all the writ petitions, stay applications and application Inward No.33038/dated 16.07.2011, filed by petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1960/2011, are disposed off as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. It will be open for the plaintiff/ respondent to refer all relevant documents including the orders passed by this Court from time to time in the disputes between the parties.
9. It is needless to mention that while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Board for condonation of delay in filing the review petition, the Revenue Board will consider the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner, sympathetically, for exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting the present writ petitions.
10. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on record in each connected file.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
/KKC/
