The Supreme Court has set aside the orders of the Rajasthan High Court and the Board of Revenue which had remanded a suit filed under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, for fresh consideration after a delay of 31 years. In its judgment dated 10 April 2026 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4664 of 2025 titled Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran restored the decree passed by the Revenue Court on 16 August 1975 declaring the appellant’s khatedari rights over 158.3 bighas of land and directing recovery of the encroached portion. The Court held that the first defendant’s appeal filed in 2006 after an inordinate delay of 31 years was liable to be rejected outright and no valid ground existed for condoning such gross delay or remanding the matter.
The appellant had filed the suit claiming succession to khatedari rights from his deceased father whose name stood mutated in the revenue records on 26 November 1961. He alleged that the defendants had encroached upon half the land on the strength of a fabricated sale deed. The suit was contested by the first defendant who appeared through counsel, filed a written statement, examined two witnesses and even moved an application for production of documents. After repeated opportunities, she was set ex-parte and the decree was passed on 16 August 1975. The first appeal filed by her in 2006 was rejected by the First Appellate Authority on the ground of gross delay. However, the Board of Revenue, in second appeal, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on the plea of fraud and lack of proper opportunity, a view affirmed by the High Court in intra-court appeal.
The Supreme Court, after perusing the trial court proceedings, found that the first defendant had appeared through counsel, was personally present on several dates, and had led defence evidence. The contention that she was never served or that her presence was manipulated was held to be a deliberate falsehood belied by the record. The Court observed that the delay of 31 years was gross and the grounds taken in the appeal memorandum were improved at every stage without any substantiation. It further noted that the plaintiff was already in possession of the entire land and therefore had no occasion to seek execution of the declaratory decree. The mere non-execution of the decree could not furnish a ground to condone such inordinate delay or to presume that possession continued with the defendants, especially when no evidence of cultivation, payment of land tax or continued possession was produced by the defendants. The sale deed relied upon by the defendants was never produced before any court despite specific opportunity, leading to an adverse inference.
The Supreme Court held that the declaratory decree in favour of the appellant could not be set aside merely because the plaintiff did not file execution proceedings when he was already in possession. It ruled that the orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court were unsustainable in law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside and the decree dated 16 August 1975 passed by the Revenue Court in Revenue Case No. 94/1970 was restored in its entirety. All pending applications were disposed of.
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 