Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dt 17.01.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereunder the revision petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 was mechanically allowed in view of interim order dt 18.01.2011 passed by this Court in a writ petition No. 15294/2010. This Court vide order dt. 30.03.2012 has dismissed the writ petition No. 15294/2010.
(2.) A perusal of the order dt. 17.01.2012 indicates that the Board of Revenue has not addressed the merits of the order dt. 26.10.2010 passed by the Assistant Collector Sambhar Lake, whereby the Assistant Collector had dismissed the application filed under Secs. 151, 152, 153 read with Order 20 Rule 18 (2) CPC on the ground that the preliminary decree dt. 31.03.1986, as modified on 12.10.1987, had already attained finality as no appeal had been filed there against, and the application under Secs. 151, 152, 153 read with Order 20 Rule 18 (2) CPC was filed belatedly after 33 years for modification of the said preliminary decree. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the material available on record of the writ petition, I am of the view that the Board of Revenue has exercised its revisional jurisdiction casually overlooking the fact that such casual orders only entail confusion prolong litigation and bring disrepute to the administration of justice.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the order dt. 17.01.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer in Revision Petition No. Revision/TA/6423/2010/Jaipur is set aside and the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the revision petition now restored to its original number by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.;