- (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned (5 of 13) [SAW-278/2018] Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitionerappellant herein confirming the order of Board of Revenue.
(2.) The facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiffrespondents. It was decreed by the court of Sub Divisional Officer on 3rd October, 1988. The appeal was thereupon preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority where an interim order was passed thus decree remained unexecutable. During pendency of the appeal, a settlement is alleged to have been produced before the SDO. It is despite the fact that no case was pending before the SDO. A copy of the settlement was produced even before the Board of Revenue in pending revision petition though appeal against the decree was pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority. If at all settlement was entered between the parties, it should have been produced before the Revenue Appellate Authority to seek decree in terms of settlement by quashing the decree of the SDO court dated 3rd October, 1988. In the meanwhile, pending appeal was dismissed in default on 8th October, 2013. With dismissal of the appeal, the decree passed by the SDO became final as order of dismissal of the appeal was not challenged. The execution petition pursuant to the decree dated 3rd October, 1988 was filed, however, orders were passed ignoring the fact that appeal was dismissed in default on 8th October, 2013 thus decree is executable. The matter finally travelled to the Revenue Board in a revision petition. The impugned order has been passed thereupon finding decree to be executable, however, it is other than for the portion already sold in between. It is taken to be a case of bonafide purchase.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has take us to the order of the first authority wherein it has been observed as under:- TABLE NOT FOUND 3.1 He has taken us to the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 18.11.1995 which reads as under:- TABLE NOT FOUND 3.2 He also pointed out that appeal was dismissed in default on 8.10.2013 where contradictory order was passed. 3.3 Therefore, he has taken us to the order of Assistant Collector, Kotputli wherein it has been observed as under:- TABLE NOT FOUND ;