Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1144 (RAJ)

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Guwari

1999-09-07

B.J.SHETHNA

body1999
Honble SHETHNA, J.–All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the same are arising out of common impugned judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue on 10.09.97 whereby 8 revision petitions filed by the petitioner Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, `RSEB) have been decided. (2). There is a chequered history in these cases. The private respondents were recorded khatedar-tenants of the land which was initially acquired by the State of Rajasthan (Mines Department) for Palana Lignite Project (PLP) on 25.03.1965. The compensation was also awarded and paid to the land owners. (3). However, on 01.10.1981, the Mining Department addressed a letter dated 01.01.1981 to the Collector, Bikaner stating that the land acquired for PLP may be handed over to the RSEB for construction of thermal power plant. Accordingly, the Collector, Bikaner by his orders dated 17.02.1981 and 04.03.1981 ordered that the land in question may be recorded in the name of RSEB in the revenue records and possession of the same be handed over to the RSEB. Accordingly, the Tehsildar, Bikaner attested the mutations in favour of the RSEB with the report dated 22.03.81 taking over possession. (4). It was challenged by various khatedars by filing separate appeals which were dismissed on 01.07.1981. Second appeals filed by the khatedars before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner were also dismissed on 03.04.1982. However, the revision petitions filed against the same before the Board of Revenue were ac-cepted by a common order dated 30.06.1983. Review petitions filed by the petitioner RSEB before the Board of Revenue were also rejected on 30.06.1984 by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner RSEB challenged the same before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by filing special appeals which were also dismissed on 25.03.1985. (5). The Board of Revenue by its order dated 30.06.1983 remanded the matter for passing a fresh order after hearing the concerned parties. However, the said orders are not produced on record by the petitioner as the same merged into the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in special appeals passed on 25.03.1985 (Annexure 8). (6). The Board of Revenue by its order dated 30.06.1983 remanded the matter for passing a fresh order after hearing the concerned parties. However, the said orders are not produced on record by the petitioner as the same merged into the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in special appeals passed on 25.03.1985 (Annexure 8). (6). At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on 30.06.1983 allowing the appeals filed by the respondent-khatedars and dismissing the review petitions filed by the RSEB as well as the order dismissing the special appeals filed by the petitioner RSEB on 25.03.1985 became final as the same were not challenged further by the petitioner RSEB. (7). On remand the matters were taken up by the Tehsildar, Bikaner before whom the objection was raised that he had no jurisdiction to decide the mutations, therefore, the Tehsildar, Bikaner referred the matter to the Settlement Department by his order dated 04.12.1986 (Annexure 9). The Assistant Settlement Officer attested the mutations in the name of private-respondents i.e., the original khate-dars by orders dated 15.04.1987 and 04.06.1987. Against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, 14 appeals were filed by the petitioner RSEB before the Settlement Officer who accepted the appeals by his common order dated 31.03.1989 (Annex. 10) and ordered that the RSEB may be recorded as the khatedar-tenant in respect of the land in question. (8). Aggrieved by the common impugned order dated 31.03.1989 (Annexure 10) passed by the Settlement Officer, the private-respondents filed 14 appeals before the Settlement Commissioner which were allowed by the common judgment and order dated 09.05.1991 (Annexure 11). (9). Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure 11 passed by the Settlement Commissioner dated 09.05.1991, the petitioner RSEB preferred only 8 revision petitions out of 14 cases; and, for reasons best known to it, it had not challenged the common judgment and order dated 09.05.1991 passed by the Settlement Commissioner in favour of those six private respondents. Thus, against six appell-ants before the Settlement Commissioner the petitioner RSEB accepted the order. Be that as it may. The Board of Revenue by its common judgment and order Annexure 12 dismissed all those eight revision petitions. (10). Thus, against six appell-ants before the Settlement Commissioner the petitioner RSEB accepted the order. Be that as it may. The Board of Revenue by its common judgment and order Annexure 12 dismissed all those eight revision petitions. (10). Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09-05.1991 passed by the Settlement Commissioner allowing the appeals of the private-respondents and impugn-ed order at Annexure 12 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petitions filed by the RSEB petitioner, the RSEB has preferred separate eight writ petitions before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. (11). Learned counsel Shri Prakash Tatia, for the petitioner-RSEB, vehemently submitted that once the land was acquired then it cannot be de-acquired by the State. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme court in cases of -Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (1) and Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Sri Avinash Sharma (2). The sum and substance of the arguments of Shri Tatia was that having acquired the land and paying the com-pensation the State Government cannot withdraw the orders and de-acquire the land particularly when the owners of the land never questioned or challenged the acquisition. He submitted that the land-owners even accepted the compensation and handed over the possession to the State, therefore, it was not open to the State to de-acquire the land and hand over the possession back to the original owners after collecting the principal amount with interest from them. (12). It must be stated that the original acquisition was for PLP and not for the RSEB. Merely because the Mining Department by its letter dated 01.01.1981 directed the Collector, Bikaner to hand over the land to the RSEB for construction of thermal power plant, the RSEB would not get any right, much less it cannot claim khatedari-rights over the land particularly when the State Government de-acquired the land and ordered to restore the possession to the original land-owners-private respondents, who had already refunded the award money with interest thereon. From the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner at Annexure 11 and the Board of Revenue at Annexure 12, it is clear that the private-respondents were in possession of the land after the State Government passed order to restore the possession to them and, in turn, they also refunded the awarded amount with interest thereon. (13). Similarly, the Board of Revenue was fully right in observing that the RSEB cannot urge that it had not been heard by the mutating-authority before passing the order of mutation in favour of the private respondents because it has no case for claiming the land as the acquisition proceedings were initiated for the PLP and not for the RSEB. (14). On the facts of these cases, none of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court cited by Shri Tatia will have any application, therefore, I have refrai-ned myself from dealing with the same in detail. Once the possession of the land in question is already legally handed over to the private-respondents then RSEB cannot claim khatedari-rights over the land on mere reccommendation of the Mining Department to transfer the said land and hand over the possession thereof to the RSEB. (15). The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is very narrow and limited as held by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Yunus vs. Mohammed Mustaqin & Ors. (3). This Court cannot even correct an error on law committed by the Courts below. No error on law or facts has been committed either by the Settlement Commissioner or the Board of Revenue in their impugned orders, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in these petitions. (16). Accordingly, all these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.