[2025:RJ-JP:16358] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3979/2025 Shrawan S/o Late Jagdish, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Rajarampura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Gulab Devi W/o Late Jagdish, Resident Of Village Rajarampura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 2. Gyarsilal S/o Late Jagdish, Resident Of Village Rajarampura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 3. Vimal S/o Late Jagdish, Resident Of Village Rajarampura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 4. Dr. Shailendra Singh Solanki S/o Shri Bahadur Singh Solanki, R/o G-15, Janpath Shyam Nagar, Tehsil And District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikas Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Deepak Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) by which the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RAA’) has been rejected on the ground of limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit under Section 183 read with Section 92(A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, [2025:RJ-JP:16358] (2 of 6) [CW-3979/2025] 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) was submitted by the respondents against father of the petitioner before the Court of Assistant Collector, Amer. Counsel submits that father of the petitioner died on 27.01.2014 and thereafter, an application for substitution of his legal representatives was submitted, but the petitioner was never served with the notice in the matter, pending before the Court of Assistant Collector and the notices were served upon mother of the petitioner, who is an illiterate villager. Thereafter, an ex-parte decree was passed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 27.09.2019. The petitioner was not having any knowledge about passing of the aforesaid order and he came to know about the same, only when he received a notice from the Tehsildar, Amer on 14.02.2020 and thereafter, an application was submitted for obtaining certified copy of the aforesaid judgment which was supplied on 26.02.2020. Subsequent thereto, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the RAA. Counsel submits that along-with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also submitted, narrating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, but instead of deciding the matter on its merits, the appeal arising from the order of Assistant Collector has been rejected on the technical count of delay. The petitioner then approached the Board of Revenue by way of filing second appeal, however, the same was also rejected. Counsel submits that the matter was required to be heard and decided by the RAA on its merits and the same should not have been rejected on the technical count of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments/ orders:- [2025:RJ-JP:16358] (3 of 6) [CW-3979/2025] 1. Chokinath Madhao Tabhane & Anr. Vs. Ramdas Udaram Gedam & Anr., while deciding Civil Appeal No.7250 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C)No.2140/2001) decided on 16.10.2001. 2. Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (D) by Lrs., reported in 2015 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 443 decided on 19.01.2015. 3. Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 386 decided on 07.05.2019. 4. Ram Singh (since Deceased) through his Legal Representatives Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 778 decided on 21.01.2014. 5. Daya & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 365 decided on 28.07.2016. 6. Ramchandra Vs. Bhagwana & Ors. reported in 2023 (10) WLC 655 (Raj.) decided on 02.12.2022. 7. Manjur Singh Vs. Thakari Kaur & Ors. reported in 2012 (1) RRT 177 passed by Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer vide order dated 23.11.2011. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that after death of the original defendant, i.e., father of the petitioner, all his legal representatives were substituted on record. The mother of petitioner appeared before the Court of Assistant Collector at the time of disposal and brother of the petitioner- Mr.Vimal was having knowledge about pendency of the suit against them, as he has admitted this factum in the written statement submitted by him, in a different Revenue Suit bearing No.156/ 2014. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, it [2025:RJ-JP:16358] (4 of 6) [CW-3979/2025] is clear that the petitioner was also having complete knowledge about pendency of the present suit before the Assistant Collector, but intentionally and deliberately, he failed to appear before the Court concerned and the Assistant Collector has rightly passed the ex-parte judgment against the petitioner and the co-defendants who are the LRs of the original defendant-Jagdish. Counsel submits that once the co-defendants were having knowledge about pendency of the suit before the Assistant Collector, it cannot be relied and believed that the petitioner was not having any knowledge of the same. Hence, under these circumstances, no justification has been provided by the petitioner in his application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Counsel submits that considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the learned RAA, has not caused any illegality in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay. Counsel submits that this fact has been re- appreciated by the Board, while rejecting the second appeal preferred by the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments/orders are as follows:- 1. Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Lrs & Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 decided on 08.04.2024. 2. Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 decided on 22.08.2013. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:16358] (5 of 6) [CW-3979/2025] 7. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit under Section 183 read with Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was preferred by the respondent No.4 originally against father of the petitioner before the Court of Assistant Collector, who expired in the year 2014. Thereafter, his legal representatives were substituted in the array of cause-title and notices were sent to them. It appears that the notices were served upon mother of the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the service was treated as complete and an ex-parte judgment was passed by the Assistant Collector on 27.09.2019. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware about pendency of the aforesaid suit and ex-parte decree and the same came to his knowledge, when he received the notice from the Tehsildar, Amer in the month of February, 2020 and immediately, thereafter, an application was submitted for obtaining certified copy of the same and after receipt of the judgment, the appeal was preferred along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Court of RAA. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reason assigned by the petitioner for delay appears to be just and proper and the written statement submitted by brother of the petitioner cannot be treated as a valid information in relation to the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the Revenue Appellate Authority was supposed to hear and decide the appeal on its merit and demerits instead of rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. 10. On this count alone, the judgments passed by the RAA as well as the Board stand quashed and set-aside. Delay in filing appeal before the RAA stands condoned. The RAA is directed to [2025:RJ-JP:16358] (6 of 6) [CW-3979/2025] decide the matter afresh, after providing the opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Stay application and all pending application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/22