Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 390 (RAJ)

Shiv Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1997-03-17

B.J.SHETHNA

body1997
Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner made an application for allotment of 20 bighas of land of khasra no. 359 before the Advisory Committee of Gram Gagrana. The meeting of the Advisory Committee took place on 26.6.1986, wherein S.D.O. Merta, Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Merta, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gagrana were present. There were 15 applicants including the petitioner Shiv Singh whoapplied for allotment of uncultivable wasted land for its development. Except 15 no one applied for the land. Their applications have been granted by the members of the Committee. But the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat refused to sign the minutes on the ground that he wanted to go for site inspection and then only he will sign after looking at the record. The said objection of Sarpanch was noted inthe register in spite of that he (Sarpanch) refused to sign. The allotment order is at Annex.1. Aggrieved by the same, Dhool Singh Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gagrana applied before the Collector under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules, 1983 (for short the Rules) for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner Shiv Singh on the ground that quorum was not complete, therefore,the allotment was illegal and liable to be cancelled. Learned Collector, Nagaur accepted the objection raised by the Sarpanch regard quorum and cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by his impugned order dated 26.10.1987 (Annex.2). The petitioner challenged the same in appeal before the Revenue Appe- llate Authority which was allowed on 7.9.1988 (Annex.3). Aggrieved of the same,Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gagrana as well as State of Rajasthan filed appeal no.79/88 nd 107/88 respectively before the Board of Revenue which were allowed on 30.10.90 (Annex.4) and the impugned order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority at Annex.3 dated 7.9.88 in favour of the petitioner was set aside. The petitioner has filed petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenged the order passed by the Revenue Board at Annex.4. (2). Learned counsel Shri I.R. Chaudhary for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Board has committed grave error in allowing the appeals filed by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Gagrana and State of Rajasthan. He submitted that Reve-nue Appellate Authority rightly allowed the appeal which should not have been interferred by the Board of Revenue in appeal filed by the Sarpanch and the State of Rajasthan. He submitted that Reve-nue Appellate Authority rightly allowed the appeal which should not have been interferred by the Board of Revenue in appeal filed by the Sarpanch and the State of Rajasthan. He submitted that learned Member of Board of Revenue has unnecessarily criticized the Revenue Appellate Authority in his judgment without giving him any opportunity. He lastly submitted that the Board of Revenue committed gra-ve error in holding that there was no proper quorum. Shri Dhirendra Singh appearing for the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Gagrana and Shri Patel Addl. Govt. Advocate have supported the order passed by the Revenue Board allowing the appeal against the petitioner. They submitted that in absence of quorum the Revenue Board was fully justified in setting aside the order passed by the Revenue appellate authorityand restoring the cancellation order passed by Collector. (3). The impugned order of cancellation was passed by the Collector (Annex. 2) in exercise of powers under Rule 18 of the Rules, which reads as under:- ``18. Powers of Collectors to cancel allotment–The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment, or terminate any lease, made by a Sub-Divisional Officer either suo moto or on the application of any person at any time in case the allotment/lease has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation, or has been made against rules or in case the lessee has committed breach of any of the conditions of the allotment or lease : Provided that no such order shall be passed to the prejudice of any person without giving such person an opportunity of being heard. (4). Thus, under Rule 18 the Collector can cancel the allotment made by S.D.O. if he is satisfied that the allotment was secured either through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against the rules. Admittedly the case of the petitionerwould never fall in first category namely that the allotment is secured through fraud or misrepresentation i.e. not even the case of the respondents. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gagrana challenged the allotment order only on the short ground that there was no proper quorum as provided under Rule 12 of the Rules for allotment. Admittedly the case of the petitionerwould never fall in first category namely that the allotment is secured through fraud or misrepresentation i.e. not even the case of the respondents. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gagrana challenged the allotment order only on the short ground that there was no proper quorum as provided under Rule 12 of the Rules for allotment. Under Rule 12, the allotment has to be made in consultation wth Advisory Commi-ttee by the S.D.O. The Advisory Commitee is consisting of (i) M.L.A. (ii) Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, (iii) Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, (iv) Assistant Conservator of Forest or Range Officer, and (v) Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti. Under Rule 12(2) the S.D.O. has to give to the members of the Advisory Committee at-least seven days notice of the date, time and place of the meeting of the Committee.Proviso to the Rule 12(2) clearly provides that if any member of the Advisory Committee fails to attend on the date fixed and intimated to him, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall carry on the work of allotment in consultation with other members of the Advisory Committee not being less than two in number. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gagrana, though remained present in the meeting of the Advisory CommiCommittee refused to sign the minutes on the ground mentioned therein after participating in it. It was signed by the S.D.O. and Pradhan who were present. Merely because the Sarpanch refused to sign would not make any allotment illegal on the ground that there was no quorum. The requirement is that the Advisory Committee should not have less than two members alongwith S.D.O. It may be that the Sarpanch for the reasons (sic) refused to sign, but it cannot be said that he did not participated in the meeting. On facts of this case it is clear that requirement of rules regarding quorum was fully satisfied, therefore, Collector was in error in cancelling the allotment order. Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal, but the Board of Revenue has wrongly allowed the appeals filed by the Sarpanch and State of Rajasthan. (5). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the impugned order at Annex.2 passed by the Collector and the order at Annex.4 passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the appeals filed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,Gagrana and State of Rajasthan are hereby set aside. (5). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the impugned order at Annex.2 passed by the Collector and the order at Annex.4 passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the appeals filed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,Gagrana and State of Rajasthan are hereby set aside. The order of Revenue Appellate Authority at Annex.3 is restored. (6). Accordingly, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs.