Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1065 (RAJ)

Shiv Narain v. State of Rajasthan

2001-07-12

B.S.CHAUHAN

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.10.87 (Annx. 5) passed by the Additional Collector, CAD. Kota-Bundi, by which the application of the not to give effect to his order in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 4 to 7 dated 11.9.87 has been rejected and the order dated 22.8.88 (Annx. 6) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner owned and was in possession of Khasra No. 146 measuring 26 Bigha 13 Biswas and Khasra No. 164 measuring 10 Bighas 3 Biswas and the contesting respondents owned the land in Khasra No. 148 measuring 31 Bigha 10 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of village Jahangirpur, tehsil Bigod, district Kota. The aforesaid lands of both the parties were notified by the State Government under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 (for short, `the Act'). The land development work stood concluded in 1987 and new Khasra Nos. were allotted. Area of land to some extent of both the parties stood reduced because of the development work and subsequently the notices were dated 9.4.87 (Annx. 1) issued to the parties that the possession of their respective land would be handed over to them. The contesting respondents filed application dated 11.9.87 before the respondent No. 3 that while making the development of their land, a drainage has been dugged thus, they may be given land on one side of the same. Respondent No. 3, on the same date, issued directions to the Patwari concerned to allot them land on one side of the drainage (Annx. 3). Petitioner, being aggrieved, moved an application on 18.9.87 before the respondent No. 3 that the land, which was initially belonged to him and had been taken by the Corporation for development and after development had been handed over to him, could not be given to the contesting respondents on any ground. The said application was registered as Case No. 31/87 and decided by the respondent No. 3, vide order dated 19.10.87 (Annx. 5) by making an order in favour of the contesting respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petition preferred appeal No. RLDC 412/87, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.6.88 (Annx. 6). Hence this petition. 3. Mr. The said application was registered as Case No. 31/87 and decided by the respondent No. 3, vide order dated 19.10.87 (Annx. 5) by making an order in favour of the contesting respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petition preferred appeal No. RLDC 412/87, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.6.88 (Annx. 6). Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Mahrish, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a large number of issues, including that of limitation, urging that the application could have been filed within a period of thirty days as provided under the provisions of rule 16 of the Rajasthan Land Development Rules, 1977 (for short, `the Rules, 1977'). The said rule provides for a limitation of thirty days for makings grievance though the Collector may admit an application after the said period provided he is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the said period. In the instant case, petitioner failed to lay down the factual foundation on the issue. There is nothing on record to show as on what date the parties had actually been put in possession and whether the dates preceding the filing of the application were holidays and whether the application could be saved by the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the issue cannot be determined and hence rejected. 4. It is next urged by Mr. Mahrish that the Act and the Rules framed thereunder provide for development of the land and the Act and the Rules do not empower the Authority to exchange the land of one tenure-holder with another or consolidate the land of any tenure-holder, therefore, if the land in dispute initially belonged to the petitioner, the same could not be given to the contesting respondents. On the contrary, Mr. Garg has submitted that under Section 42 of the Act, any kind of dispute can be agitated before the to Collector and the said order will be appealable before the Divisional Commissioner, therefore, the Authorities have the power to exchange the land of one tenure-holder with other and such a dispute has rightly been adjudicated upon. In support of his submission, Mr. Garg has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Banshi Lal v. Divisional Commissioner, 1989(1) RLR 50 . 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In support of his submission, Mr. Garg has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Banshi Lal v. Divisional Commissioner, 1989(1) RLR 50 . 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The purpose of enacting the Act had been to constitute a corporation for the execution of projects relating to land development with a view to preventing damage to land and loss in agricultural productivity and to securing optimum utilisation of water resources in the State and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Clause (e) of the Bill introduced in the Assembly reads as under : "To ensure participation of the land holder in the development programmes on his land by requiring him either to undertake specified development works or to pay to the Corporation cost of such work to be executed by it." 7. The development includes land levelling and shaping including realignment of field boundary, digging, renovation and re-designing the field drainage. Section 17 provides for the business which the corporation may transact which basically provides for formulation, appraisal and evaluation of projects. Section 20 provides for sanction of projects. Chapter V of the Act provides for sanction of projects and its execution. Section 23 specifically provides for power to enter upon a land-holding after making sanction etc. Section 24 provides for proportionate cost of works to be provided by land holders. 8. The Scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder provide that a tenure-holder can execute the development project himself or get it executed through the Corporation and after completion of the project, the Corporation shall restore the possession of the developed land to him. The purpose of establishing the Corporation was to provide the machinery for land development as farmers cannot afford to arrange for earth-movers etc., individually. However, there may be unavoidable exceptional circumstances wherein while executing the project and making a development of land, it may be found necessary, while carving out the plots that the land of two tenure-holders may be mixed up to some extent and only in such eventuality it may be possible that some part of the land of one tenure-holder may be included in the land restored to another tenure-holder. Allotting the land of one tenure-holder after development to another would amount to permitting the Authority to exchange the land of one tenure-holder to another without his consent and that had never been the object of the Act, nor it is permissible. 9. In the instant case, the notice dated 9.4.87 (Anhx. 1) served upon the petitioner makes it abundantly clear that his land initially bore Khasra Nos. 146 and 164, after development was given Khasra Nos. 622, 609, 608 & 616. Where given land of contesting respondents had been given Khasra Nos. 607 and 619. There is nothing on record to show as with what date they were put in possession of their respective lands after development and allotting them new Khasra numbers. However, the application made by the contesting respondents on 11.9.87 (Annx. 3) makes it clear that their land, which has to be given to them after development, stood divided by the drainage and, therefore, the application was made that petitioners land bearing Khasra No. 608 may be given to them instead of Khasra No. 619 so that they may have their land contiguously and the matter has been decided in their favour vide impugned judgment and orders only on the ground that the drainage would cause inconvenience to them, therefore, instead of giving them their own original land bearing new Khasra No. 619, they may be allotted the land in Khasra No. 608 which was originally belonging to the petitioner. 10. As the Act and the Rules do not provide for consolidation of the land, nor the Act and the Rules provide for exchange of land though under certain circumstances, if during the course of development it was found necessary to make straight boundaries etc., it may be possible that some part of land of a tenure-holder may be given to another. The facts of the case in Banshi Lal (supra), very heavily relied upon by Mr. Garg, are quite distinguishable and the said judgment is not an authority on this issue because that was a case where the land of two tenure-holders to certain extent had to be mixed up for the purpose of development and after development the land had been carved out in such a way that it was not physically possible to allot the original land to the respective tenure-holders. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that such an inter-mixing of land had taken place during the course of development. Thus, the question of permitting the contesting respondents to have petitioner's original land did not arise. 11. Moreso, this Court, vide its order dated 15.9.88, stayed the operation of the impugned orders dated 19.10.87 and 22.8.88. The stay order was confirmed vide order dated 4.10.88 and the stay was directed to be operative till the disposal of the writ petition. The application filed by the contesting respondents to vacate the stay order was rejected vide order dated 21.7.89. Thus, even otherwise, the petitioner is in physical possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 608 for a long time and, therefore, it is not desirable to dispossess him from the said land at such a belated stage. 12. In view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.10.87 (Annx. 5) and 22.8.88 (Annx. 6) are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed - Impugned Order quashed. *******