CW28/2006 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.28/2006 Chauth Mal Goyanka Vs. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others Date of Order ::: 13.12.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri G.K. Garg with Ms. Sonia Shandilya, Counsel for petitioner Shri R.N. Mathur and Shri R.K. Sharma and Shri Atma Ram Sharma and Shri Pawan Pareek and Shri Anil Poonia, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner against order of Board of Revenue dated 25.11.2005 whereby revision petition filed by respondents was allowed and suit was dismissed. Contention of Shri G.K. Garg, learned counsel for petitioner, is that learned Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed appeal filed by respondents because it was hopelessly time barred; the appeal was filed 18 years after decree was passed by Sub Divisional Officer on 05.12.1983. It is contended that Board of Revenue at maximum could have remanded appeal to Revenue Appellate Authority rather than dismissing the suit; secondly, revision petition was not maintainable because if it were appeal it should have been heard by two members of CW28/2006 // 2 // the Board and revision petition is heard by single member and in that manner petitioner is prejudiced. Per contra Shri R.N. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent submitted that land in dispute of which khatedari rights were conferred upon petitioner is a land belonging to member of Schedule Caste, therefore provisions of Section 42 (b) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act will be attracted. There was no proper service of notice on respondents and they did not have opportunity of filing written statement. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that not only respondents engaged an Advocate Shri Narottam Lal but also they filed written statements and produced documents. It is contended that respondents cannot be entitled to any protection under Section 42(b) of the Act because initial entry was made in favour of their father. Having regard to nature of controversy and fact that matter is not being satisfactorily decided both at the ends of the court of Sub Divisional Officer also Board of Revenue, I deem it appropriate to remand this matter to court of Sub Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu, by setting aside order dated 05.12.1983, order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 08.05.2003 and order of Board of Revenue dated 25.11.2005. It is made clear that nothing argued in this court or observed by this Court would have any effect on either way CW28/2006 // 3 // prejudicing interest of parties before court of Sub Divisional Officer where parties would have an opportunity to lead fresh evidence on all contentious issues. Sub Divisional Officer is expected to give opportunity of three months for adducing evidence to each of parties and then within six months thereafter pass final order. In other words final order shall be passed by him within one year from date of producing a copy of this order before him. Writ Petition is partly allowed with aforesaid observations. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//