Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2004 DIGILAW 1373 (SC)

ROSHANLAL (DEAD) BY LRS. v. State Of RajasthanS

2004-09-30

B.N.SRIKRISHNA, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL

body2004
ORDER 1. THE APPELLANT MADE AN APPLICATION ON 5-9-1962 FOR GRANT OF GOVERNMENT LAND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAJASTHAN COLONISATION (GANG CANAL LANDS PERMANENT ALLOTMENT AND SALE) RULES, 1956 (FOR SHORT "THE RULES"). THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE), GANGANAGAR ON 22-10-1964, ALLOTTED 46 BIGHAS AND 16 BISWAS OF LAND TO ROSHANLAL, FATHER OF THE PRESENT APPELLANTS. IN THAT ORDER OF ALLOTMENT, IT HAD BEEN STATED THAT ROSHANLAL HAD BEEN AN AGRICULTURIST SINCE 1947. A COMPLAINT WAS MADE ON 29-7-1966 ALLEGING THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND WAS OBTAINED BY ROSHANLAL BY MISREPRESENTING FACTS AND THAT HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ALLOTMENT OF LAND. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), BY HIS ORDER DATED 8-2-1982, CANCELLED THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND MADE IN FAVOUR OF ROSHANLAL. THE SAID ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BIKANER, IN APPEAL, WHICH WAS DISMISSED ON 12-3-1984. THE MATTER DID NOT REST THEREAT. ROSHANLAL FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE BOARD OF REVENUE, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE CONCURRING WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE BOARD OF REVENUE HELD THAT THE CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT MADE IN FAVOUR OF ROSHANLAL WAS PROPER. A REVIEW APPLICATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE BOARD OF REVENUE SEEKING REVIEW OF ITS A ORDER, WHICH WAS ALSO DISMISSED. IT IS THEREAFTER THAT ROSHANLAL FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, BY HIS ORDER DATED 12-5-1998, DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE WRIT PETITION AND, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISSED IT, AFFIRMING THE ORDER MADE BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE. THE VALIDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WAS QUESTIONED BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN SPECIAL B APPEAL. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AS WELL DID NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON OR VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. THE NARRATION OF THESE FACTS SHOW THAT EVERY ONE OF THE AUTHORITIES AND THE HIGH COURT HAVE CONCURRENTLY RECORDED FINDINGS OF FACT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS CONCLUDING THAT THE CANCELLATION OF THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND MADE IN FAVOUR OF ROSHANLAL WAS PROPER. THE APPELLANTS ARE BEFORE US IN C THIS APPEAL, AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER MADE BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT. 2. THE APPELLANTS ARE BEFORE US IN C THIS APPEAL, AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER MADE BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT ARE RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AGAINST THE APPELLANTS, AS AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT, BUT THERE ARE ERRORS IN THEIR FINDINGS AND APPROACH. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ALLOTMENT MADE D IN FAVOUR OF ROSHANLAL WAS ON PROPER CONSIDERATION; ROSHANLAL WAS A LANDLESS PERSON AND HE WAS PERSONALLY CULTIVATING THREE BIGHAS OF LAND; AND THE HOLDING OF HIS FATHER WAS WRONGLY INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING WHETHER HE WAS A LANDLESS PERSON OR NOT. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, EVEN THE FINDING THAT ROSHANLAL WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF THE CHAK WHEREIN THE LAND IS SITUATED IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT E IN BRIJ LAI V. BOARD OF REVENUE1 AND MANSARAM V. S.P. PATHAK2 IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THAT AFTER A LONG LAPSE OF TIME, THE APPELLANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSSESSED OR DISTURBED FROM THE LAND WHICH WAS ALLOTTED TO ROSHANLAL. 3. IN OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3, MADE SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, POINTING OUT TO THE ELABORATE ORDER MADE BY THE REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN THE FACTS HAVE BEEN F CLEARLY STATED AND FINDINGS ARE RECORDED WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. ROSHANLAL WAS NOT THE RESIDENT OF THE CHAK IS A FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON APPRECIATION OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD WHICH FINDING WAS ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT. ONE OF 9 THE CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY OF ALLOTMENT OF LAND UNDER RULE 3(1)(VIII)(B) OF THE RULES IS THAT A PERSON CLAIMING THE ALLOTMENT OF THE LAND SHOULD BE RESIDENT OF THE PARTICULAR CHAK. THE FINDING IS ALSO RECORDED THAT ROSHANLAL WAS NOT A BONA FIDE CULTIVATOR OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS ALSO PUT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS THAT THERE HAS BEEN SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACT IN GETTING THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND. WITH REGARD TO SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS POINTED OUT THAT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE IS NO SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACT AS SUCH. IT IS ALSO PUT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS THAT THERE HAS BEEN SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACT IN GETTING THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND. WITH REGARD TO SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS POINTED OUT THAT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE IS NO SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACT AS SUCH. IN THE APPLICATION MADE FOR ALLOTMENT OF LAND, IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT ROSHANLAL WAS CULTIVATING THREE BIGHAS OF LAND. HE WAS A LANDLESS PERSON AS TOTAL LAND POSSESSED BY HIM WAS FIFTEEN BIGHAS OF UNCULTIVATED LAND. SINCE IT HAS BEEN CONCURRENTLY FOUND THAT ROSHANLAL WAS NOT RESIDENT OF THE SAME CHAK IN WHICH THE LAND ALLOTTED IS SITUATED, RENDERED HIM INELIGIBLE TO GET THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND, APART FROM THE OTHER FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NO GOOD REASON TO DISTURB THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BASED ON EVIDENCE. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS WELL AS THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT WERE RIGHT IN AFFIRMING SUCH FINDINGS AND DECLINING TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN BRIJ LAL1 TO CONTEND THAT AFTER A LAPSE OF ABOUT FIFTEEN YEARS, THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANTS OVER THE LAND SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED BY CANCELLING THE ALLOTMENT MADE. IN PARTICULAR, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT, WHICH READS: (SCC P. 546) "5. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT THE APPELLANT IS IN CULTIVATING POSSESSION OF THE LAND SINCE 1970. IT WOULD BE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE TO DISPOSSESS THE APPELLANT FROM THE LAND WHICH HE IS NOURISHING FOR OVER A PERIOD OF TWO DECADES." IN OUR VIEW, WHAT IS STATED IN PARA 5 IS WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS STATED IN PARA 4 THEREOF. ON MERITS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CANCELLATION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT IN THAT CASE WAS MINOR ON THE DATE OF TEMPORARY ALLOTMENT. IT IS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE IN PARA 5 AND RELIEF WAS GIVEN. THIS JUDGMENT, ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANTS. THE DECISION IN MANSARAM2 ALSO DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 12 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. IT IS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE IN PARA 5 AND RELIEF WAS GIVEN. THIS JUDGMENT, ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANTS. THE DECISION IN MANSARAM2 ALSO DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 12 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN PARA 12 THEREOF WERE IN ADDITION TO THE FACTS AND POSITION MADE CLEAR IN PARAS 10 AND 11. HAVING FOUND FAULT WITH THE ORDER, AS STATED IN PARAS 10 AND 11, FURTHER OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE IN PARA 12 THEREOF. IN OUR VIEW, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SPECIFIC FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE CASE ON HAND, IN PARTICULAR, THAT ROSHANLAL WAS INELIGIBLE FOR ALLOTMENT OF LAND, SUCH ALLOTMENT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE RIGHT IN CANCELLING THE ALLOTMENT AND THE HIGH COURT WAS EQUALLY RIGHT IN AFFIRMING THE CANCELLATION OF THE ALLOTMENT. THUS, FINDING NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL, WE DISMISS IT WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.