Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) A challenge has been made to the judgment dt. 28.10.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter 'the Board'), whereby the Board has set aside the order dt. 11 -9 -2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dt. 28.10.2014 passed by the Board.
(2.) THE reason which prevailed with the Board in passing the impugned judgment was that the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) had entertained the appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation even though it was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The Board also noted the fact that the appellant before the RAA (now the petitioner) was not a party in the suit for declaration of khatedari rights under Sections 88 and 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955, decreed by the Sub Divisional Officer Sikar on 23.7.2002, yet an appeal at his instance without deciding/allowing the application for leave to appeal against the decree of dt. 23.7.2002 was entertained. On the aforesaid findings of illegalities/irregularities committed by the RAA, the Board has set aside its order and remanded the matter to the RAA directing that the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay (apparently to be now filed) and the application for leave to appeal under Sec. 96 of the CPC, 1908 be first decided before the appeal be addressed, if at all, on merits. Mr. Sudesh Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the findings of the Board with regard to belated appeal being decided without an application for condonation of delay having been filed or allowed, while the application for leave to appeal under Sec. 96 CPC also remained pending are perverse or even erroneous. He has however submitted that the grounds which prevailed with the Board in setting aside the judgment 11.9.2003 passed by the RAA were hyper technical in nature and have resulted in substantial injustice. He submitted that the RAA had vide its judgment dt. 11 -9 -2003 rightly set aside an unjust and collusive decree in the suit for declaration of khatedari rights. Counsel further submitted that in view of decision in the appeal on merits by the RAA, the grant of leave to appeal ought to be implied and observations by the RAA in its order dt. 11 -9 -2013, even though stray and apparently casual, regarding a small delay in filing the appeal tantamounted to condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
(3.) HEARD . Considered.;