Judgment · High Court

PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, AGC, for the appellant. None present for the respondent. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by respondent of Writ Petition No.2592/1997 under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against an order dated

8.5.2002 passed by Single Judge in above mentioned writ petition.

By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent herein and in consequence quashed the two orders (Annex.3 and 6) impugned in the writ. { 2 }

So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition and in consequence justified in quashing the two orders impugned therein?

Facts of the case are these. One Sajni Devi was the owner of land bearing Khasra No.589/2 situated at village Khariya Tehsil Abu Road, Sirohi. She sold this land to writ petitioner (respondent) by registered deed of sale dated 5.8.1995. The writ petitioner then applied for conversion of land which was recorded as an agricultural land in Revenue Records from agriculture to that of residential to the Revenue Authorities. The conversion so applied was allowed by the order dated

10.11.1995. On 27.5.1996 the writ petitioner transferred the land in question to one Ambuja Developers Pvt. Ltd.

This led to issuance of show cause notice dated

10.6.1997 (Annex.4) by Tehsildar to the writ petitioner complaining therein that since the writ petitioner sold the land within two years from the date of order of conversion dated 10.11.1995 and secondly it was not used for the purpose as provided in Rule 13 and hence, there was contravention of Rule 10 and 13 of the Rajasthan land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non- Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules 1992 (for short hereinafter called 'The Rules'). The respondent (writ petitioner) filed a preliminary reply and opposed the show cause notice. According to respondent, it was inter-alia { 3 } contended that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to issue such show cause notice. By the impugned order dated 30.6.1997 (Annex.7) the Tehsildar overruled the objection raised by the respondent and fixed the case for 8.7.1997 for final disposal of the case. It is against this rejection order of Tehsildar, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arises. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of Tehsildar dated

30.6.1997. It is against this order, the State has filed this intra court appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the order passed by Single Judge remand the case to Tehsildar for deciding the matter finally on merits.

In our considered view, when the matter before the Tehsildar was to be decided finally on merits, then there was no need to challenge the interlocutory order of Tehsildar passed on 30.6.1997. Indeed it is clear from the order-sheet of Tehsildar dated 30.6.1997 (Annex.6):-

30.6.97 पत(cid:3)वल(cid:6) प(cid:8)श ह(cid:11)ई। अप(cid:3)र(cid:17) क(cid:19) ओर स(cid:8) उसक(cid:8) अभ(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:3)षक उपस(cid:28)रत। अप(cid:3)र(cid:17) क(cid:8) अभ(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:3)षक द(cid:3)र(cid:3) प(cid:28)त(cid:11)त प(cid:3)र(cid:31)न(cid:3)पत पर बहस स(cid:11)न" ज(cid:3)कर आद(cid:8)श अलग स(cid:8) ककय(cid:3) ज(cid:3)कर श(cid:3)भ)ल पत(cid:3)वल(cid:6) ककय(cid:3) गय(cid:3)। अत: )*ल पत(cid:3)वल(cid:6) अप(cid:3)र(cid:17) क+ ददय(cid:8) गय(cid:8) )*ल ववववध न+द/स क(cid:8) ननर(cid:31)य ह(cid:8)त(cid:11) ददन(cid:3)2क 8-7-97 क+ प(cid:8)श ह+।

It is a case of a nature where Tehsildar is yet to finally decide the case one way or the other for which show { 4 } cause is issued, In such situation, he too should not have passed some kind of interlocutory order (dated 30.6.1997) but should have passed one order disposing of the case on merits after taking into consideration the reply filed by writ petitioner to show cause.

We are, therefore, of the view that the proper course in this case at this stage would be to remand the case to Tehsildar to enable him to pass the final order as already fixed by him by order dated 30.6.1997. It is only then the parties would be free to challenge all the orders including the final order further in appeal or Revision as the case may be as per law.

In view of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order, restore the case No.55/97 to Tehsildar Abu Road out of which this appeal arises. The parties are directed to appear before the Tehsildar on 18.10.2010 in the case No.55/97. The respondent is granted liberty to file additional reply to show cause and also to file documents in case if they so wish. The Tehsildar shall decide the matter finally after affording an opportunity to respondent within three months from the date of appearance of parties strictly in accordance with law. No costs. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /tarun/