Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE case comes up on an application being IA No. 2458/2013 seeking early hearing of the writ petition filed by the respondents. By the agreement of the counsels, the application is allowed and the arguments are heard.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Roop Kanwar D/o late Sh. Udai Singh and sister of respondent No. 1 Sohan Singh aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue Annex. 8 dt. 7.9.2010 in Appeal No. 9490/2007/Udaipur - -Smt. Roop Kanwar vs. Sohan Singh as well as order of the Revenue Appellate Authority Annex. 7 dt. 25.9.2007 passed in Appeal No. 199/2006 Sohan Singh vs. Smt. Roop Kanwar whereby these two revenue Courts below reopened the consent decree in a suit filed by the petitioner - -plaintiff Smt. Roop Kanwar under Sec. 88 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 on 19.5.1997 by the learned Court of SDO, Vallabh Nagar in Revenue Suit No. 202/1996 - -Roop Kanwar vs. Sohan Singh. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Roop Kanwar claiming that she had 1/3rd share in the ancestral and joint agricultural land total measuring 17 bighas and 18 biswas in Araji No. 3336 and 3302 etc. as mentioned in the said decree dt. 19.5.1997 and on the written statement filed by the defendant - -brother Sohan Singh and mother Smt. Chhagan Bai W/o Udai Singh admitting her plaint, the learned trial Court of SDO after obtaining Commissioner's report and examining the P.W. 1 plaintiff herself, without any cross -examination by the defendants and on the basis of documents produced on record, namely, the consent terms between the plaintiff - -sister and defendants No. 1 and 2, brother and mother, their respective affidavits and compromise between the parties marked as Ex. 6, the learned SDO passed the consent decree on 19.5.1997 giving 1/3rd share of land in question to the plaintiff sister Roop Kanwar.
(3.) ON 1.8.2006, after about 9 years of the said consent decree, the respondent - -appellant Sohan Singh (brother) filed an appeal against the said consent decree dt. 19.5.1997 under Sec. 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and claiming that the land in question was in fact allotted in his personal name on 16.12.1976, the land in question could not be said to be the joint and ancestral property of the parties and therefore, the consent decree was not sustainable and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the said appeal was filed along with the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of decree of 9 years in filing the said appeal, in para 6 of which, the appellant went to the extent of stating that the appellant came to know of the said decree and judgment of the learned SDO for the first time on 20.7.2006 when he enquired about the said 'khata' (entries in revenue record) from the Patwari and then the Patwari informed him that he has only 1/3 share in the land in question. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority surprisingly without passing any order on condonation application or even condoning the delay as such despite opposition to this effect by the respondent - -sister Roop Kanwar as noticed in para 13 of the impugned order itself and without even allowing specifically application filed by the appellant Sohan Singh under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. along with which the appellant Sohan Singh purportedly wanted to produce the allotment document of the year 1976 in his name before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the consent decree dt. 19.5.1997 and remanded the case back to the learned SDO for fresh trial. Para 11 till end of the order dt. 25.9.2007 of learned Revenue Appellate Authority is reproduced below for ready reference: - - ;