-HITLIST-Smt. Sushila Kumari v. State of Rajasthan (SC) -RECORD-BS227128 -CITATION-2009(16) S.C.C. 345(St.Ishwinder) (HN Shailly/Ratan) zzzz3 -COURT-<ß>SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<þ> -JUDGE-Before:- Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Variava, JJ.<þ> -NO- Civil Appeal No. 16828 of 1996. D/d. -DECISIONDATE-21.03.2002.<þ> -EXTRATEXT- -PETITIONER- Smt. Sushila Kumari - Appellant<þ> Versus<þ> -RESPONDENT- State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents<þ> -ADVOCATE- For the Appellant :- Gopal Subramanium, G.L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocates with Pradeep Agarwal, Anjali Doshi, Ruchi Kohli, Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocates.<þ> For the Respondent :- Ms. Sandhya Goswami, M/s. O.P. Khaitan & Co., Advocates<þ> -HEADNOTE-<ß>Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Landowners' Estates Act, 1963, Section BTZKARJ521ETZK10(2) - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Stay of proceedings - Appeal against order of Compensation, Commissioner passed under Section BTZKARJ521ETZK10(2) pending before Board of Revenue - Proceedings under Tenancy Act stayed till appeal under estates Act is decided by Board of Revenue.<þ> [Para 4]<þ> -ORDER- ORDER<þ> <ß>Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. - The short question that arises in this appeal is: whether the proceedings under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Tenancy Act') shall be allowed to continue pending disposal of the proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section BTZKARJ521ETZK10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Landowners' Estates Act, 1963 (Act No.11 of 1964) (in short 'the Estates Act').<þ> 2. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur by its order dated May 17, 1995 in SBCWP No.768 of 1983, impugned in this Appeal, took the view that the proceedings under the Tenancy Act need not remain stayed till the decision of the Compensation Commissioner under the Estates Act. The appellant is the widow of the Maharaja of erstwhile State of Bikaner.<þ> 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.<þ> 4. The order under challenge is in the nature of an interlocutory order. Having regard to the ambit of the question before us, it is not necessary to delve into interpretation of Sections BTZKARJ521ETZK6,BTZKARJ521ETZK7,BTZKARJ521ETZK8 and BTZKARJ521ETZK10 of the Estates Act. Further, as the determination under sub-section (2) of Section BTZKARJ521ETZK10 of the Estates Act depends upon the true interpretation of the said provisions and we are informed that an appeal against the order of the Compensation Commissioner passed under Section BTZKARJ521ETZK10(2) of that Act, is pending before the Board of Revenue, it would be inappropriate to express any opinion on that aspect. However, on the facts and in view of the question involved in this case, we are of the view that it would be just and proper that the proceedings under the Tenancy Act shall remain stayed till the appeal under the Estates Act is decided by the Board of Revenue.<þ> 5. Having regard to the pendency of the case under sub-section (2) of Section BTZKARJ521ETZK10 of the Estates Act for quite some time, we direct the Board of Revenue to expedite the hearing of the appeal. It is needless to mention that the Board of Revenue has to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court in the order under challenge.<þ> 6. With these observations we dispose of the appeal. <þ> 7. No costs.<þ> -RESULT- .<þ>

<þ>