DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) BY way of this intra -court appeal, the petitioners of CWP No. 3940/2007 seek to question the order dated 13.11.2013 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said writ petition while declining to interfere in the order dated 13.07.2005, as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board of Revenue').
(2.) PUT in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter had been that some applications for allotment of the agricultural land comprised in Murabba No.32 at Chak 23BB, Tehsil Padampur were moved and ultimately, the allotments came to be made in favour of Shri Pal Singh (the predecessor of the present appellants Nos. 1 to 5) and Shri Hanuman Das (the appellant No. 6). The allotments so made under the order dated 31.07.1984 were sought to be challenged by the other rival applicants namely, Shri Birbal (represented by the respondents Nos. 5/1 to 5/5 herein), Shri Rajesh Kumar (respondent No. 6 herein), Shri Gyan Prakash and Shri Kalu Ram by way of an appeal (No. 197/1984) before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar ('RAA'). The learned RAA, however, proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and in that regard, made the observations in his order dated 13.05.1999 as under: - JUDGEMENT_38_TLRAJ0_2014.jpg It appears that two of the appellants, viz., Shri Birbal and Shri Rajesh Kumar attempted to question the order so passed by the RAA before the Board of Revenue in a revision petition (No. 104/99/ ./' ). The said revision petition was considered and decided by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 13.07.2005. The learned Member of the Board though observed that for the purpose of condonation of delay, an appropriate application was required to be moved and else, the delay could not be condoned by the Court of its own but then, considered it proper that the RAA ought to extend an opportunity to the appellants for filing the requisite application with affidavit. Thus, the revision petition was disposed of with the following observations and directions: - JUDGEMENT_38_TLRAJ0_20141.jpg
(3.) THE learned Single Judge has found no reason to interfere, particularly on being satisfied that the order impugned was serving the cause of substantial justice. The learned Single Judge has, inter alia, observed as under: - 8. It is true that an appeal barred by limitation not accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was liable to be rejected but then, in the instant case having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, the Board of Revenue has granted indulgence to the respondents No. 5 and 6 and permitted them to make an application for condonation of delay. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the substantial justice and procedural technicalities are pitted against each other, the former has to be preferred and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue to meet the ends of justice, cannot be faulted with. Moreover, the extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is always exercised for the sake of justice and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the Board of Revenue." ;