Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 688 (RAJ)

Pokhar Lal v. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer

2000-05-29

AMARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition filed u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order Annexure-5 dated 7.8.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue so far as it directs the resumption of 14.55 bighas of land belonging to Smt. Ghisi Bai and devolved on the petitioner is concerned, be quashed and a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari, mandamous or prohibition be issued. The facts giving rise to the present may briefly be stated as below:- 3. Jai Chand, father of the petitioner held 232.10 bighas of land. After his death, Smt. Ghisi Bai (wife) and Pokharlal (petitioner) who was the only son of Jai Chand succeeded to the estate of late Jai Chand. Proceedings under the Ceiling Law were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer. By order dated 10.2.1975, the proceedings were concluded and dropped because the Sub-Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that out of 232.10 bighas of land held by Smt. Ghisi Bai, Pokharlal, Smt. Nathi, Mangilal and Gulab Chand, about 20 bighas of land had already been entered into the name of State and out the remaining 212 bighas of land, Pokhar Lal possessed only 89.5 bighas of land and Ghisi Bai possessed 60.14 bighas of land and the land belonging to Smt. Ghisi Bai had already been entered in the name of Bhanwar Lal S/o Pokhar Lal who was a major had was entitled to retain 48 acres of land in his own right. Consequently, the land belonging to Smt. Ghisi Bai was not clubbed together with the land hold by Pokhar Lal and the remaining land which was with Pokhar Lal was held to be within the ceiling limits. 4. The ceiling proceedings were reopened on 22.5.1980 by the order signed by the Dy. Secretary, Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The order for reopening the ceiling proceedings was challenged by writ petition No. 2297/80 which was disposed of by order dated 4.11.1981. By order dated 4.11.1981, the order dated 22.5.1980 was quashed as this Court came to the conclusion that the Dy. Secretary, Revenue had no authority to reopen the ceiling proceedings. Before the decision of the writ petition on 4.11.1981, the State Government passed another order on 8.9.1981 directing that the ceiling proceedings will be reopened. By order dated 4.11.1981, the order dated 22.5.1980 was quashed as this Court came to the conclusion that the Dy. Secretary, Revenue had no authority to reopen the ceiling proceedings. Before the decision of the writ petition on 4.11.1981, the State Government passed another order on 8.9.1981 directing that the ceiling proceedings will be reopened. In pursuance of this order, the ceiling proceedings were reopened by the Collector. He clubbed the land belonging to Smt. Ghisi Bai with the land belonging to the petitioner Pokhar Lal. Final order was passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Chittorgarh in ceiling case No. 20/83 on 30.7.1984. He, therefore, ordered that 54.10 standard acres of land was liable to be resumed and after deducting 7.34 standard acres of land in respect of which resumption order has already been passed, the remaining land measuring 46.76 standard acres was liable to be resumed. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue disposed of the appeal by judgment dated 7.8.1989. The appeal was partly allowed by the Board of Revenue. It was held that out 89.10 standard acres of land found in possession of the appellant, half of the land belonged to Smt. Ghisi Bai and, therefore, on 1.4.1966, the appellant-Pokhar Lal was in possession of only 44.55 standared acres of land. The Board of Revenue further found that Pokhar Lal had six members in his family and, therefore, he was entitled to possess 35 standard acres of land whereas Smt. Ghisi Bai was entitled to possess only 30 standard acres of land. In consequence of the conclusions arrived at by the Board of Revenue, the appeal was partly allowed and it was ordered that out of the 44.55 standard acres held by Pokhar Lal 9.55 standard acres of land be resumed after taking 7.34 standard acres of land in respect of which resumption has already been passed. It was further ordered that 14.55 standard acres of land was liable to be resumed out of the land held by Smt. Ghisi Bai. The Board of Revenue observed that Pokhar Lal was a successor of Smt. Ghisi Bai and, therefore, 44.55 standard acres of land be resumed from his share. 5. It was further ordered that 14.55 standard acres of land was liable to be resumed out of the land held by Smt. Ghisi Bai. The Board of Revenue observed that Pokhar Lal was a successor of Smt. Ghisi Bai and, therefore, 44.55 standard acres of land be resumed from his share. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 8.9.1981 are void and without jurisdiction because no notice had been given to the petitioner and to the successors of Smt. Ghisi Bai as required by Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1970. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the contention that the notices had not been served before passing the order dated 8.9.1981 is without any basis because in para No. 2 of the order dated 8.9.1981, it is clearly mentioned that notices had been served on the petitioner and he had filed a reply through his Advocate. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced before the Court a copy of the order dated 8.9.1981 in support of his submission. He has also produced before the Court the certified copies of the notices issued on 25.10.1979 and the reply filed by Shri Radhe Shyam Purohit on behalf of Pokhar Lal on 5.2.1980. 6. A perusal of the writ petition shows.that the relief of quashing the order dated 8.9.1981 has not been prayed by the petitioner and the copy of the order dated 8.9.1981 has also not been filed with the writ petition. The petitioner has omitted to mention in para No. 6 of the writ petition that para No. 2 of the order dated 8.9.1981 contains a recital to the effect that notices had been served on the petitioners and reply has been filed by his Advocate. In other words, the petitioner has not given sufficient facts as to the contents of the order dated 8.9.1981 by non-filing a copy of the order dated 8.9.1981 alongwith the writ petition and he has not prayed that the order dated 8.9.1981 should be quashed. In these circumstances, it is difficult to quash the order dated 8.9.1981 on the ground that notice under section 15(1) of the Act was not issued by the Government before passing the order dated 8.9.1981. In these circumstances, it is difficult to quash the order dated 8.9.1981 on the ground that notice under section 15(1) of the Act was not issued by the Government before passing the order dated 8.9.1981. The prayer to quash the aforesaid order deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 7. So far as the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 7.8.1989 is concerned, by this order the appeal filed by the petitioner-Pokhar Lal was partly allowed. The land possessed by late Smt. Ghisi Bai was separated and it was held that on 1.4.1966 Smt. Ghisi Bai as well as Pokhar Lal possessed 44.55 standard acres of land. The land, which Smt. Ghisi Bai and the petitioner-Pokhar Lal were entitled to retain having regard to the members of their families, was also calculated by the Board of Revenue and it was held that Smt. Ghisi Bai was entitled to retain 30 standard acres of land and Pokhar Lal was entitled to retain 35 standard acres of land in view of the fact that he had six members in his family. Consequently, 9.55 standard acres of land out of 44.55 standard acres of land held by the petitioner-Pokhar Lal was ordered to be resumed and it was further observed that if the possession of 7.34 standard acres of land in respect of which an order of resumption has already been passed had already been taken possession of that land shall be deducted. Out of 44.55 standard acres of land held by Smt. Ghisi Bai, 14.55 standard acres of land was ordered to be resumed by the Board of Revenue. It appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Board of Revenue that the land of Smt. Ghisi Bai had devolved on Bhanwarlal and in view of the submissions made before the Board of Revenue, it was observed that Pokhar Lal being the successor of Smt. Ghisi Bai, 14.55 standard acres of land be resumed out of the share of Smt. Ghisi Bai. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land belonged to Smt. Ghisi Bai had not devolved on the present petitioner-Pokhar Lal and, therefore, 14.55 standard acres of land be resumed out of the land possessed by late Smt. Ghisi Bai cannot be recovered from the petitioner and that the petitioner apprehends that if the above mentioned direction of the Board of Revenue is allowed to stand, 14.55 standard acres of land which is liable to be resumed out of the land held by Smt. Ghisi Bai may be recovered from the petitioner's own land. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the respondents to recover 14.55 standard acres of land out of the land held by late Smt. Ghisi Bai, from the persons who have succeeded by the estate left by Smt. Ghisi Bai. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if such a direction is issued, it will serve the ends of justice. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The prayer for quashing the order dated 8.9.1981 is hereby rejected. The direction of the Board of Revenue to recover 14.55 standard acres of land from the petitioner is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to recover above mentioned land in accordance with the law from the persons who have succeeded the estate left by late Smt. Ghisi Bai. The petition is disposed of accordingly.Writ partly allowed. *******