Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1102 (RAJ)

Jagdish v. State of Raj.

2003-08-01

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2003
Honble PARIHAR, J.–The land in dispute bearing khasra No. 10 in Village Gandlai, Tehsil Lalsot was allotted to the respondents No. 5 to 8, being members of the Armed Forces on 16.7.1973 by the Allotment Committee. Father of the petitioner challenged the above allotment made in favour of the respondents No. 5 to 8 under rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Lan Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short the Rules of 1970) before the Additional Collector, Jaipur. The allotment made on 16.7.1973 was cancelled by the Additional Collector, Jaipur vide order dated 30.12.1974. (2). The respondents challenged the above order dated 30.12.1974 passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. After an interim order dated 18.1.1975, staying the operation of the judgment dated 30.12.1974 passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur finally accepted the appeal vide order dated 31.5.1989 and set aside the order dated 30.12.1974 passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur cancelling the allotment made in favour of the respondents No. 5 to 8 on 16.7.1973. (3). In the meanwhile, ignoring the interim order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 18.1.1975, the Allotment Committee again allotted the land in dispute in favour of the father of the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.1977. The respondents filed an application under rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 before the Additional Collector, Dausa. While allowing the application, the Additional Collector, Dausa. cancelled the allotment order dated 27.10.1977 vide order dated 14.5.1998. A further appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (Camp Dausa) was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2000. The second appeal filed by the petitioner and other affected persons before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order dated 27.3.2003. Hence, the present writ petition, challenging all the orders passed by the authorities below in the matter as referred above. (4). After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the orders impugned and the relevant rules. (5). There is no dispute that the earlier order passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur, cancelling the allotment made in favour of the respondents on 16.7.1973, had been stayed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur vide order dated 31.5.1989. (5). There is no dispute that the earlier order passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur, cancelling the allotment made in favour of the respondents on 16.7.1973, had been stayed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur vide order dated 31.5.1989. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 31.5.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was a nullity on the ground that no steps were taken by the respondents for bringing legal representatives of father of the petitioner on record, cannot be accepted as the allotment made in favour of the father of the petitioner in the year 1977 itself was wholly illegal and irregular in view of the interim order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 18.1.1975. (6). Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 is reproduced hereasunder:- ``(4) The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made by a Sub-Divisional Officer (or a Tehsildar under the rules repealed by rule 21 of the rules) either suo-motu or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment. Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard. (7). A bare reading of the above provision would show that the Collector either suo moto or on the application of any person could cancel the allotment on the grounds mentioned in this rule. It is only the allottee who is necessary party. The father of the petitioner was only a complainant and the appeal pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority could not have been created as having abated and order passed on 31.5.1989 a nullity. (8). The order dated 31.5.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority could have been further challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, however, the same having not been done, the irregular allotment made in favour of the petitioner could not have been sustained in the eyes of law. (9). (8). The order dated 31.5.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority could have been further challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, however, the same having not been done, the irregular allotment made in favour of the petitioner could not have been sustained in the eyes of law. (9). Since there have been concurrent findings of all the authorities below and even the Board of Revenue having considered all the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no ground for any further interference of this court. (10). Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit.