Skip to content


Smt. Laxmi Devi and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Application No. 156
Judge
Reported in1971WLN(UC)11
AppellantSmt. Laxmi Devi and anr.
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and anr.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....while acting within jurisdiction--whether a reversion lies.;to invoke the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the petitioners must satisfy that (1) the court assumed jurisdiction not vested in it, or (2) omitted to exercise jurisdiction, or (3) committed illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to correct erroneous decision of law or facts, even though they may be claimed to be palpable and manifest errors. section 166 c.p.c. is limited to cast of jurisdiction.;in order to succeed, the petitioners must show that the court acted illegally i.e. in breach of some law or with material and which may affect the merits of the case. the fact that while acting within its limits irregularity by..........judge, no. 3, jaipur city, exercising powers of a court under the provisions of the rajasthan land acquisition act.2. the facts leading to the reference may be briefly stated as follows. jankilal the predecessor in interest of the applicants was owner of three shops, two temples, kham and pucca houses in the city of jaipur. his property was acquitted under the land acquisition act and eventually, the collector. (the land acquisition officer exercising powers of collector) gave a award as to the compensation payable to jankilal, on 6-7-1967. it is unnecessary to set out the details of the award, for the purposes of disposing of this revision application. jankilal applied to the collector (officer making the award) for making reference to the court on 14-8-67, and the officer made a.....
Judgment:

L.N. Chhangani, J.

1. This is a reference by Smt. Laxmi Devi and another and is directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, No. 3, Jaipur City, exercising powers of a court under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act.

2. The facts leading to the reference may be briefly stated as follows. Jankilal the predecessor in interest of the applicants was owner of three shops, two temples, kham and pucca houses in the city of Jaipur. His property was acquitted under the Land Acquisition Act and eventually, the Collector. (The Land Acquisition officer exercising powers of Collector) gave a award as to the compensation payable to Jankilal, on 6-7-1967. It is unnecessary to set out the details of the award, for the purposes of disposing of this revision application. Jankilal applied to the Collector (officer making the award) for making reference to the court on 14-8-67, and the officer made a reference on 21-9-67. Notice of the reference was served on the Government and the Government Pleader appeared on a number of dates fixed for the hearing of the reference, namely, 15-11-67, 3-1-68, 17-1-68, 6-3-68. Jankilal died during the pendency of the reference and his legal representatives were brought on record on 6-3-68. After that also, the case was adjourned a number of times. Ultimately, on, 3/8/68 the Government filed cross objections under Section 22A of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners raised an objection of bar of limitation in respect of the cross objections. The Government Pleader thereupon submitted an application under Section 6 of the Limitation Act for entertaining the cross objections even if it be held to be time barred. In support of the bar of limitation, the petitioners relied upon the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. prescribing 30 days limitation for filing cross objections commencing from the date of service of notices upon the respondent The court over ruled the plea of the petitioners observing that Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. cannot apply to the cross objections under Section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Judge in doing so, pointed out some points of difference between the cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. and cross objections under Section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In this view of the matter, the Court did not decide the Government's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners have presented the present revision petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Bhandari for the petitioners and the Additional Advocate General.

4 To invoke the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the petitioners must satisfy that (1) the Court assumed jurisdiction not vested in it, or (2) omitted, to exercise jurisdiction, or (3) committed illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to correct erroneous decisions of law or facts, even though they may be claimed to be palpable and manifest errors. Section 115 C.P.C is limited to cases of jurisdiction. In order to succeed, the petitioners must show that the court acted a illegally i.e. in breach of some law or with material irregularity by committing an error of procedure which is material and which may affect the merits of the case. The fact that while acting within its limits of jurisdiction the court committed an error of law cannot be a ground for entertaining a revision application. In these circumstances am unable to accept this revision application.

5. The revision application is dismissed. The petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the interlocutory order of the civil court in any appeal from the final decision of the court. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //