toto togel 4d situs toto togel situs togel slot deposit pulsa slot gacor 4d data keluaran hk

Ramdeva vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

48.00 4.80

Guaranteed Safe Checkout
Spread the knowledge

Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973–Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955–Secs. 53 & 88–Ceiling proceedings were initiated against the landholder M and 137 bighas 8 biswas land was acquired–Order was affirmed till BOR and attained finality–Surplus land vested in the State, was allotted to other persons and they started to cultivate it–Thereafter, R son of M (the appellant) filed the suit seeking the partition and declaration with the averments that his interest ought to be protected in the ceiling proceedings but such was not done by his father–Dismissal of suit–Thereafter, R filed the appeal against the original order date 29.05.1975, passed in ceiling proceedings–RAA allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter–Revision before BOR by both parties–BOR allowed the revision of State and dismissed the revision of R–R filed the writ petition against the order passed in the revision filed by him–Order passed in the revision filed by the State was not challenged–Direction in the writ petition to file the review petition before BOR–BOR reviewed the earlier order, passed on 03.08.1976 qua M–Writ petitions by State and other allottees–Allowed–Instant special appeal–Nothing on record to show that M challenged the earlier order passed by the BOR before the Writ Court or in other proceedings–Plea of R that he came to know about the order dated 29.05.1978 only in the year 2003 is a false plea–Order dated 29.05.1975 had merged in the orders passed in first and second appeals and it could not have been challenged again–Further, R filed the writ petition against the order passed in the revision filed by him–Order passed in the revision preferred by the State remained unchallenged and attained finality–Therefore, BOR was not justified in reviewing its earlier order–Impugned order passed by the BOR was unsustainable in law and it was rightly set aside by Single Judge–Further, the proceedings initiated by R without impleading the allottees of the land as the respondent party were not maintainable–Interference declined.