RAMSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1968-7-21
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on July 25,1968

RAMSINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MURLIDHAR DATOBA NIMANKA VS. HARISH BALKRISHNA LATANE [LAWS(BOM)-2003-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
CHUNNILAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1972-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA VS. BISWANATH MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1971-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KRISHNA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1976-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
HEMRAJ VS. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER [LAWS(RAJ)-1978-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
GURSEWAK SINGH AND ORS. VS. VICE-CHANCELLOR, GURU NANAK UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1970-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KAREEM VS. D M O ERNAKULAM [LAWS(KER)-1973-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL KONWAR BARUAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2015-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
ASIT KUMAR DAS & ORS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-5-106] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BY this writ application the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, dated 24-12-60, whereby the respondent No. 7, namely Smt. Roop Kanwar, daughter of Thakur Jait Singh, the last holder of the jagir of Charwas, was recognised as his heir and compensation on account of the resumption of his jagir was ordered to be paid to her.
(2.)WE do not think it necessary to act out the facts stated in the writ application in detail, as. in our opinion, the writ application deserves to be disposed of on the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. The preliminary objection is that the present writ application is not maintainable. In order to appreciate the preliminary objection, it Would be necessary to give a few facts leading to the filation of this writ petition,
(3.)THE impugned decision of the Board of Revenue was given on 24-12-60. A writ application challenging the correctness of the said decision of the Board of revenue was filed in this Court by the petitioner on 23-5-61 and was registered as d. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 273 of 1961. It was admitted on 30-5-61 and after service of notices on the opposite parties, it was listed for hearing on, 13-1-65. On this date no body appeared on behalf of the petitioner with the result that it was dismissed in default. An application for restoration was filed and the writ application was restored on 7-4-65. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the writ application was again dismissed in default on 13-4-66 in the presence of Shri D. P. Gupta, counsel for respondent No. 7. This time also an application for restoration was made on 18-4-66, but it was dismissed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on 20-4-66. It would be proper to reproduce the order of the Court dated 20-4-66 dismissing the application for restoration. It is as follows; "we have heard learned counsel and perused the application and affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of his writ application. We are sorry to have to say that the affidavit filed by Mr. R. S. Kejriwal that this case was taken up at 3 O' clock in the day and that he was watching it until that time is factually incorrect for we fully remember that this case was taken up before lunch and we dismissed it then and Om Prakash's case which was No. 5 on day's list was started immediately after lunch. In these circumstances, we are entirely unable to accept the petitioner's application for restoration as it fails to disclose sufficient cause for the same. The application is accordingly dismissed. " this is the second writ application which has been filed on 3-5-66 on the same facts. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 7, an objection has been taken that the previous writ application having been dismissed in default in the presence of the counsel for respondent No. 7 and the application for its restoration also having been dismissed, this second writ application does not lie.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.