Judgment:
DBSAW No.786/2013 1 51 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.786/2013 Chittorgarh Primary Cooperative Land Development Bank LTD.versus Board of Revenue, Ajmer & ORS.Date of Order :: 6th November 2013 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.Sandeep Shah, for the appellant.
<><><> Though the learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to make submissions on the stand of the appellant-bank that the transaction in question when entered into was a valid exercise of the powers under the enactment and even the earlier challenge to the same had failed in this Court but all such submissions, in our view, do not carry any weight for the basic reason that the other intra-court appeal (SAW No.589/2013) arising out of the common order (as filed by the action purchaseRs.has already been considered and dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 30.07.2013 with the following order:- “Learned counsel for the appellants too accepts that the controveRs.involved in this appeal stands squarely covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Uka & ORS.reported in 2010(2) DNJ (Raj.) 663 and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
In view of this fact, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.”
.
There does not appear any reason for this Bench to take a view divergent to the one already taken by the co-ordinate Bench.
Moreover, such a view is based on the larger bench decision of this Court.
Secondly, with the aforesaid order dated 30.07.2013, the challenge to the same order of the Board of Revenue dated DBSAW No.786/2013 2 05.04.2008 in Appeal/LR/1325/2004 by the auction purchasers stand rejected; and there is no reason to re-open the issue at the instance of the appellant-Bank.
Thirdly and in the ultimate analysis, the order so passed by the Board only operates towards protecting the rights of the class of persons referable to Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and thereby, serves the larger public cause.
For all the reasons foregoing this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
(V.K.MATHUR),J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
cpgoyal/-