Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 459 (RAJ)

Megha Ram v. Board of Revenue

1997-04-03

B.J.SHETHNA

body1997
Honble SHETHNA, J. – Petitioner No. 1 Magha Ram is father of petitioner No. 2. Between 1960 to 1966 they were allotted 120 and 128 bighas land respectively, whereas, maximum limit was 75 bighas. Respondent No. 3 Kishna Ram of the same village claiming himself to be the social worker made a complaint on 3.1.1974 before the Collector for cancellation of allotment as it was made against the rules. Collector accepted that application and cancelled the allotment. Aggrieved by that the petitioners filed appeal before the revenue appellate authority which was dismissed. Then second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue, wherein, the Board of Revenue remanded the matter to the Collector. This time Collector rejected the application filed by Kishna Ram for cancellation of allotment made in favour of petitioners by his order dated 19.8.81. Aggrieved by that respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was partly allowed and it was held that the petitioners were entitled for allotment of only 75 bighas, therefore, cancelled the excess land of 49 and 73 bighas respectively. Aggrieved by that the petitioners preferred second appeal before the Board of Reve- nue which was also dismissed on 14.2.1990 by the Board of Revenue. Review application also came to be dismissed on 8.4.91 by the Board of Revenue. (2). Aggrieved by these orders the petitioners have filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion this is a petition under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court has to exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is very narrow and limited. As held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SC page 38 (1), even error of law cannot be corrected by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (3). Learned counsel Shri Beniwal submitted that respondent No. 3 Kishna Ram had no locus standi to file appeal against the order passed by the Collector. Therefore, he submitted that the Appellate Authority committed an error in partly allowing the appeal against the petitioners and Revenue Board also committed same error while dismissing the second appeal. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal at Annex. Therefore, he submitted that the Appellate Authority committed an error in partly allowing the appeal against the petitioners and Revenue Board also committed same error while dismissing the second appeal. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal at Annex. 2 and Board of Revenue at Annex. 3 and review petition at Annex. 4 are required to be set aside. In support of his submission Mr. Beniwal has placed reliance upon the larger Bench decision of Board of Revenue reported in 1981 R.R.D. page 60(2), 1995 R.R.D. Page 172(3) and another decision of Board of Revenue reported in 1996 R.R.D. page 223(4). He has also relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1981 R.R.D. page 723(5). This Court is bound only by the judgment of this Court and not by the Board of Revenue which is subordinate to this Court. The larger Ben- ch judgment of Board of Revenue reported in 1981 R.R.D. Page 630(6) was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in 1981 R.R.D. page 723 (supra) on a question of first and second appeal maintainable before Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue respectively which is clear from para No. 4 of the Judgment which reads as under :– ``4. Learned counsel for the petitioner have brought to our notice a full Bench decision of Board of Revenue delivered in Bajranga vs. Badri 1981 RRD 630. This decision based on a Single Bench decision of the Board or Revenue delivered in State vs. Bhopal Chand 1973 RRD 303 to which one of us was a party. In the above noted Single Bench judgment it was held that the Collector empowered to cancel allotment suo moto or on an application exercises power of an original Court and neither any appellate nor revisional jurisdiction. This case was approved by Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in Jagannath vs. Radhey Shyam 1973 RRD 393, as well as by a Full Bench as noted above. We respectfully agree with the reasonings of the Full Bench of Revenue Board and hold that the impugned order passed under Rule 14 sub-clause (iv) was an original order and the first appeal was maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority and second appeal before the Board of Revenue. (4). We respectfully agree with the reasonings of the Full Bench of Revenue Board and hold that the impugned order passed under Rule 14 sub-clause (iv) was an original order and the first appeal was maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority and second appeal before the Board of Revenue. (4). The question of locus standi was not decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Lalu Rams case (supra). Mr. Beniwal then relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in case of P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam (7). It was held by the Constitutional Bench that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against judgments of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of private parties. It was also held that, ``where in murder case an appeal against acquittal was not filed by State, a private citizen who is neither a complainant, nor a first informant could invoke the special power under Article 136 for leave to appeal against the acquittal and the same would not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case the respondent No.3 himself was the complainant and the complaint was initially rejected by the Collector but in appeal Revenue Appellate Authority partly accepted complaint and cancelled the allotment of land held by both the petitioners more than 75 bighas. In case of Bar Council Maharashtra vs. M.V. Dabhdkar the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that meaning of aggrieved person may vary from cases to cases in extent of statute. Either the decision is adverse to him or the legal burden is imposed on him, he is the aggrieved person. Where the legal right is denied, the person denied such right is aggrieved person. Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue have held against the petitioners on this point and decided that Kishna Ram had locus standi and appeal filed by him against the order of Collector rejecting his application for cancellation of land allo- tted to the petitioners was maintainable. The authority cannot allot more than 75 bighas to any person. The purpose of restricting the limit of allotment of land is with a view to allot land maximum to landless persons and not to one individual more and more. This was the Govt. land and it could not have been allotted more than 75 bighas. The authority cannot allot more than 75 bighas to any person. The purpose of restricting the limit of allotment of land is with a view to allot land maximum to landless persons and not to one individual more and more. This was the Govt. land and it could not have been allotted more than 75 bighas. Under the circumstances it must be held that respondent No. 3 Kishna Ram had the locus standi to file appeal and the appeal filed by him before the Revenue Appellate Authority was maintainable and Revenue Appellate Authority rightly entertained and partly allowed the appeal against the petitioners. Similarly, the Board of Revenue has rightly dispelled this contention and dismissed the second appeal of the petitioners. (5). I may make it clear that if I have not held that appeal at the instance of Kishna Ram was maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority then also I would not have interferred with the orders of revenue appellate authority and Board of Revenue in exercise of my superintending powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as substantial justice was done in this case by the Revenue Appellate Authority in allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 Kishna Ram. One more contention was tried to be raised by learned counsel Shri Beniwal that separate orders were passed regarding allotment of land, but the respondent No. 3 has filed only one application and common appeal against the order passed by the Collector, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. This contention was neither raised before the Revenue Appellate Authority nor before the Board of Revenue, therefore, it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before this Court. Even otherwise also no prejudice was caused to the petitioners, therefore, this Court would not like to interfere with the impugned order passed by the courts below on this ground. (6). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no costs. Stay granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.