Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 115 (RAJ)

Hafiz Abdul Sakoor v. State of Rajasthan

2003-01-27

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This review petition has been filed by the petitioner on 28.10.2002 with the prayer that the judgment and order dated 17.10.2002 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 187/2002 be re-called and the report of the District Collector, Jaisalmer dated 5.8.1997 (Annex.R/2) be quashed and set aside. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission stage. 3. It may be stated here that the main writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 31.10.2001 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction, the so called report No. Revenue/Colonisation/97/3884 dated 5.8.1997 (Annex.R/2) or any other report against the petitioner be quashed and set aside and in the alternative, the respondents be directed to supply copy of the so-called report dated 5.8.1997 (Annex.R/2) to the petitioner so that he could come to know about so called allegations and could challenge the same in appropriate forum. 4. This Court in para No. 9 of the judgment and order under review has observed as follows : "So far as question whether allotment of land in question was rightly cancelled or not is concerned, an appeal has already been filed by the petitioner and the same is pending and, therefore, in this writ petition, validity of cancellation order dated 2.7.2001 (Annex. 1) is not going to be examined." 5. Ultimately, writ petition filed by the petitioner was partly allowed in the following manner : "For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed in part in the manner that the respondents are directed to supply copy of report dated 5.8.1997 (Annex.R/2) submitted by the Dist. Collector, Jaisalmer (respondent No. 1) to the petitioner within one month from today." 6. Now the case of the petitioner is that since the report of the Collector dated 5.8.1997 (Annex.R12), as per R. 16 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1975"), had become final and since this report was made by the Collector without hearing the petitioner, therefore, it should have been quashed and set aside. 7. 7. In my considered opinion, the above argument is not tenable at all, as in the original writ petition, there was alternative prayer of the petitioner that either the report of the Collector dated 5.8.1997 (Annex.R12) be quashed and set aside or its copy be supplied to him and this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2002, (under review), after giving reasons, ordered that the copy of the report of the Collector dated 5.8.1997 (Annex.R/2) be supplied to the petitioner and thus, alternative prayer of the petitioner was accepted by this Court and when this being the position, no case for review is made out.For the reasons stated above, this review petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.Review Petition Rejected. *******