CW/40/1988 of VIKRAMADITYA SINGH Vs STATE and ORS on 22 August 1989

O R D E R

Vikramaditya v. State of Raj. & Ors.

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.40/1988under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India.

Date of Order : 23rd May, 2005

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the petitioner.Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Addl.Govt.Advocate.

BY THE COURT:

The only contention of the counsel for thepetitioner is that the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan,Ajmer while deciding appeal No.11/84 by judgment dated11.6.1987 has not taken into consideration thecontention of the petitioner appellant with regard toviolation of provisions of Section 12 of the RajashanImposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1973”).This fact was also brought into knowledge of the Boardof Revenue by way of filing a review petition whichwas decided by the Board of Revenue by judgment dated26.8.1987. The Board of Revenue while dismissing the review petition held that the contention for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 12 of theAct of 1973 was tangential or peripherial and had nobearing on the point basically at issue. According tothe counsel for the petitioner the provisions ofSection 12 of the Act of 1973 are mandatory in natureand, therefore, the Board of Revenue should have dealtwith the contentions raised by the petitioner withregard to violation of provisions of Section 12 of thesaid Act.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

From the pleadings it is apparent that thepetitioner appellant raised a contention before theBoard of Revenue with regard to non-compliance ofprovisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1973. The Boardof Revenue while deciding appeal by judgment dated11.6.1987 has not taken into consideration thecontentions so raised. The Board of Revenue whiledeciding review petition also observed that thecontention raised by the petitioner with regard tonon-compliance of Section 12 of the Act of 1973 wastangential and peripheral and, therefore, refused todecide the contention of the petitioner and dismissedthe review petition. The Board of Revenue exercisesjudicial powers and while exercising such powers allthe contentions raised and pressed in service arealways required to be adjudicated.

I do not find any just and valid reason toterm the contention raised by the petitioner appellantwith regard to non-compliance of the provisions ofSection 12 of the Act of 1973 as tangential andperipheral. The contention goes to the route of thematter and, therefore, it requires adjudication onmerits.

In view of whatever stated above the judgmentimpugned dated 11.6.1987 is quashed. The Board ofRevenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer is directed to decide theappeal afresh. The Board of Revenue while doing sowill adjudicate the contention of the petitionerappellant with regard to non-compliance of theprovisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1973. The Boardof Revenue is expected to decide the appeal within aperiod of three months from the date of receipt ofcertified copy of this order. The parties are directedto maintain status quo with regard to the land inquestion for a period of four months from today. Thepetitioner shall be at liberty to move an applicationfor extension of interim order before the Board ofRevenue, if so required.

The writ petition is disposed of accordinglywith no order as to costs.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.