STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MANSINGH
LAWS(RAJ)-2018-9-179
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 20,2018

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
VERSUS
MANSINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Raipur, District Pali has approached this Court for assailing the judgment dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Ceiling Appeal No.3187/2002 whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondents against the order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Pali was allowed and the said order was quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by Shri O.P.Boob, learned Govt. Counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment.
(3.) Firstly, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition suffers from gross laches of nearly 41/2 years for which, no explanation has been offered in this writ petition. That apart, even on merits, learned Govt. Counsel was unable to point out any illegality, irregularity or error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment warranting interference therein in the exercise of the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. The land in question was owned by late Shri Amarsingh, who expired in the year 1958 by which time, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force, as per which, all first class legal heirs of Shri Amarsingh were entitled to an equal share in the property in question. The Board of Revenue, whilst deciding this issue, held as below:- 15 - 3W 16 - ftlTR attFTRlRl srftefRff t ft^f R 3RJFTT STFTftF Rf Ftf c||R*IH R?t ^TfeRT FtRT RR1RT tl RFRR TFFR feTR SlRnnW FTTT Rtf f^RT RRT tl FRft t ^F 3TRRFF t Rt tf R^F % FFRR FR R RRRT 11 t^TR t f^tcTT RT RTftcT Rt Sff^TRRnT tlR #RT arf ?| 3frRtf t RrftF aiMf ft anfer t ft Rtf i ^ RwiRd t^pR fp# t rr 3mRfe Rt Yg t rtr RRff t "?tiiMd'hiO stRirft fTftR tft % frrr Urtt ^Ff % rtirt RRRT I RiFTT FRRR 1/6 ft^FT ftdlRd t 11 3mRfe Rf 5 ^F tf RTIRT RR ftTFT T Tit tl RF RRRT RpR 5 RlftF ^F RlHRfd< t RR R?tR RR RdlRd t 1/5 RRRT 11 RlMkfd < Rt FFRT t# t W % FFRR ttRRRTRR Ft RRRR tl Fit ? -?JF 3JRRRRT iff Ff | iftf f^Rft tf 'Ft 3lttf RT srrf^TcT Rtf FTRT FT FRRTTI STFTftF Rt TJRJ t RTR FRRt tRT Rt +IMdR l(l 3rffcrftRF t FTRFTRf t 3FJFTT FFR ft^t t FRRR tlRRRlRR Ft RRRR tl RRTRf t tt R1RT Rt 3lMf RIRW t STeTR TFRT RR1RT RRT tl RRt Rndd tft TT1RR TF5R RMT Rt affT t F^R Rtf Rt Rt 11 ttt ftFft t R1RT Rt 'JF RT anfecT Rtf RTRT FT RRRR I f^fTlt aiMf HMRu? t Rl^Rf RR RTRT RR tTRT RPTRfF R TTT RTftR t Rtf tlFT RT TfRRR I tfRT % dH 17 - ftsrfftR Itft 01.04.1966 tf 3lMf RPTfW t RTF 577 tfRT ?ff FRRT^FR FRRt F1FT RR RTRf FT^Rf RT1RT RR ftWT Fft t F1RT RR 1/6 ftWT ^ ^ FRTFF aiMf FTRftF 1/6 ftrt tf RTRT RRt t, Ft 96 tfRT t eTRFR RRtt tl FF RRRT FlRfW tf RTRT tTRT tff^R tfFT t R F TFtf t f^Ft FF RF apffeT FflRRT ^TRT -MIMlRld FFFt 11 ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.