Of Keshoraipatan, Tehsil Keshoriapatan District Bundi, Rajasthan v. Board Of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer. State Of Rajasthan Through The Tehsildar, Kesho

Judgment

1. Satnam Son Of Shri Dhanna Singh @ Dhan Singh, By Caste Sikh, Chamar Ramdasiya, Resident Of Keshorai Patan, Tehsil Keshorai Patan, District Bundi

2. Ram Lal Son Of Late Shri Gopal, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Keshorai Patan, District Bundi

3. Smt. Kali Bai Widow Of Late Shri Gopal, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Keshorai Patan, District Bundi ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 365/2017 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7956/2010

2. Ramlal Son Gopal Kali Bai Wife Of Late Gopal, Both Residents Of Keshoraipatan, Tehsil Keshoriapatan District Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus Board Of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer. State Of Rajasthan Through The Tehsildar, Keshoraipatan.

Satnam Son Of Shri Dhanna Singh @ Dhan Singh, By Caste Sikh, Chamar Ramdasiya, Resident Of Keshoraipatan, Tehsil Keshoriapatan District Bundi. ----Respondents (2 of 8) [WRW-248/2017] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Gunjan Chawal Mr. Vikas Kabra JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/08/2025

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the matters, they have been heard together and decided by this common order. The review petition and the writ misc. application have been submitted by the petitioners-Kali Bai and Ram Lal for recalling of the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by this Court, while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14690/2014; and for recalling of the order dated

16.07.2012 passed by this Court, while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7956/2010, by which the writ petition submitted by the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father/husband-Gopal, who was the member of the Scheduled Caste Category, sold the land in question to one Satnam by way of a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1969. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar, Keshoraipatan, District Bundi under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) on the ground that the land belonging to the member of the Scheduled Caste Category cannot be sold to the persons belonging to the (3 of 8) [WRW-248/2017] General Caste and such sale is hit by Section 42 of the Act of

1955. It was alleged in the said application by the Tehsildar that the purchaser Satnam since belongs to General Caste Category, the sale so made by the Gopal was void, in terms of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. The learned Sub Divisional Officer (for shrot, ‘SDO’) vide judgment dated 01.01.1983 decreed the suit and declared the sale deed as void, against which an appeal was preferred by Satnam before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, ‘RAA’). The matter was remanded to the SDO by the RAA with certain directions. Thereafter, the SDO decreed the suit again vide judgment dated 29.09.2004 against which again Satnam submitted an appeal before the RAA, however, this time the appeal was rejected vide judgment dated 24.05.2006 and it was held that the transaction of sale was contrary to the mandate, contained under Section 42 of the Act of 1955. Thereafter, Satnam submitted second appeal before the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’). The second appeal submitted by Satnam was allowed by the Board vide judgment dated

16.03.2010 and the judgments passed by the SDO and RAA were quashed and set-aside while observing that Satnam does not belong to General Caste, rather he also belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, as per the latest notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 16.03.2010, two different writ petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14690/2014 and 7956/2010 were submitted by the State (4 of 8) [WRW-248/2017] and the petitioners-Kali Bai and Ram Lal respectively, before this Court.

4. The writ petition bearing No.7956/2010 was withdrawn by the petitioners on 16.07.2012, as the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought liberty to avail the remedy available in law and considering the aforesaid request made, at the instance of the petitioners, their writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

5. Subsequently, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14690/2014 was submitted by the State against the judgment passed by the Board dated 16.03.2010 and the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2016.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.09.2016, the petitioners-Ram Lal and Kali Bai submitted D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.315/2017 and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 02.06.2017, treating the same as not maintainable and a liberty was granted to the petitioners to file an application seeking review of the order dated 26.09.2016 before this Court and recalling of the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7956/2010 as withdrawn.

7. Accordingly, the instant review petition as well as the writ misc. application have been submitted by the petitioners for recalling of the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14690/2014 and for recalling of the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7956/2010. (5 of 8) [WRW-248/2017]

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Ram Lal and Kali Bai submits that the petitioners engaged one Mr. Arvind Bharadwaj, Advocate to file S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7956/2010 before this Court against the judgment dated

16.03.2010 and they never authorized him to withdraw the writ petition and without seeking their instructions, the writ petition was withdrawn. Counsel submits that the same counsel i.e. Mr. Arvind Bharadwaj appeared on behalf of Satnam in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14690/2014 before this Court and after hearing his arguments, the writ petition submitted by the State was rejected vide order dated

26.09.2016. Counsel further submits that one counsel cannot appear on behalf of two rival parties. But in the instant case, Mr. Arvind Bharadwaj has appeared in both the matters on behalf of both the rival parties. Counsel further submits that the judgment passed by the Board is contrary to the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan and sale was effected in the year 1969 and at the relevant time, the purchaser i.e. Satnam was falling within the General Caste. The circular/notification relied upon by the Board, for the subsequent years, was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the judgment passed by the Board is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore, the review petition and the writ misc. application have been submitted for proper adjudication of the writ petition submitted by the State and by the petitioners respectfully. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. (6 of 8) [WRW-248/2017]

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the review petition as well as the writ misc. application for recalling of the order dated 26.09.2016 as well as the order dated 16.07.2012, as they never assailed the orders passed by the SDO and the RAA before the first and second appellate authority. Counsel submits that once the writ petition, submitted by the petitioners against the order passed by the Board, has been withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy available in law, the petitioner cannot file the instant review petition as well as recalling application, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the review petition as well as the writ misc. application, both are liable to be rejected.

10. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

11. Considering the above factual matrix of the matter, as narrated by this Court in the foregoing paras and looking to the fact that the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 were initiated by the Tehsildar against the registered sale deed dated 15.08.1969 and those proceedings were allowed and the suit submitted by the Tehsildar under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 was allowed by the SDO while holding that the sale was void in terms of Section 42 of the Act of

1955. The petitioner remained silent and did not assail the said order by way of filing appeal and it was only the respondent Satnam, who felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order (7 of 8) [WRW-248/2017] and unsuccessfully challenged the order before the First Appellate Authority i.e. RAA where the appeal was rejected against which he preferred second appeal before the Board.

12. It is worthy to note here that at this juncture also, the petitioners-Kali Bai and Ramlal did not file any second appeal before the Board, meaning thereby, they were satisfied with the order of the SDO and that is why, neither first nor second appeals were preferred by them before the RAA and Board. The Board vide its judgment dated 16.03.2010 has allowed the second appeal submitted by Satnam by quashing and setting aside the judgments passed by the SDO and RAA against which the State as well as the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing two different writ petitions. The writ petition submitted by the petitioners-Kali Bai and Ram Lal was withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2012 seeking liberty to avail the remedy available under the law and the writ petition submitted by the State was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2016.

13. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners that their counsel Mr. Arvind Bharadwaj had put in appearance on behalf of Satnam in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14690/2014. This Court has perused the original record, which indicates that one Ms. Akanksha Saxena has submitted power on behalf of Satnam. Mr. Arvind Bharadwaj has not submitted any power on behalf of Satnam. Hence, with no stretch of imagination it can be believed that counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Mr. Arvind (8 of 8) [WRW-248/2017] Bharadwaj became the counsel for Satnam in those proceedings.

14. Perusal of the order dated 16.07.2012 indicates that the writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to avail other remedy available in law. Hence, under these circumstances, the application submitted by the petitioner for recalling of the aforesaid order is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. They are at liberty to avail the remedy available to them under the law. This Court finds no valid ground to recall the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by this Court.

15. Accordingly, the instant review petition as well as the writ misc. application, both stand rejected. Pending applications, if any, also stand rejected. KuD/64-65 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J