D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 410/2012. Case: Hem Raj Vs Board of Revenue and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 410/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Jain, Adv. |
| Judges | Dinesh Maheshwari and Narendra Kumar Jain-II, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226; Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 13 |
| Citation | 2012 (3) WLN 536 |
| Judgement Date | July 06, 2012 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Order:
-
By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 19.05.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No. 4488/2012), preferred against the order dated 20.01.2012 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board of Revenue'/'the Board'). By the said order dated 20.01.2012, the Board of Revenue had dismissed a revision petition against the order dated 06.05.2011 as passed by the Sub-Divisional officer, Bhadra rejecting the objections raised by the appellant against execution of an order for opening of a way, passed way back on 22.01.1996 and affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 15.09.2009 as passed in D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 212/2002. It is also an admitted position that a petition for special leave to appeal ('SLP'), as filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order dated 15.09.2009, was dismissed on 12.03.2010. Thus, in a nutshell, the position is that by way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to question the concurrent orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and then, by the learned Single Judge of this Court for execution of an order for opening of the way that has been affirmed by this Court and then, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
-
Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that an application moved by Rajbala D/o Shanti and Shanti D/o Surja Ram, for removal of the obstruction and for providing a way towards their agricultural land, was ultimately granted by the Sub-Divisional officer, Nohar ('the SDO') by the order dated 22.01.1996 after extending an opportunity of hearing to the present appellant as the way was to pass, inter alia, through his land. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.1996, the appellant preferred an appeal that was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh on 01.08.1997; and then, further appeal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 13.02.2002. Then, a writ petition filed by the appellant (CWP No. 1092/2002) was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Thereafter, the special appeal preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench of this Court (SAW No. 212/2002), was considered and dismissed by a detailed order dated 15.09.2009.
-
Essentially, the contention urged before the Division Bench in the said special appeal (SAW No. 212/2002) was that the order as passed by the SDO suffered from want of jurisdiction. The Division Bench, even while not rejecting such contention on want of jurisdiction with SDO, found no reason to consider interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction for the reason that it were a case of easement of necessity and there was no justification to deprive the applicants of the right existing in their favour per Section 13 of the Easements Act. The considerations and observations of the Division Bench in the order dated...
To continue reading
Request your trial