Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 15 (RAJ)

Satya Narain v. State of Raj.

2004-01-05

K.S.RATHORE

body2004
Honble Rathore, J.-This petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 31.10.86, Revenue Appellate Authority dated 8.11.79 and the Collector dated 29.11.1978. (2). The brief facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner applied for a petrol pump on the Sikar-Ratangarh road at Fatehpur town, near 395 KM of National Highway No. 11. Since no private land was available on the desired site, the Collector, Sikar forwarded the application of petitioner for release of land from forest area, covered by Khasra No. 47. (3). The State Government vide its order dated 4.1.72 conveyed sanction of the State Government to the Chief Conservator of Forests for the release of 2 bighas 4 biswas of aforesaid land out of Khasra No. 47 and transferred it to the Revenue Department. (4). The Collector, Sikar vide its order dated 20.9.72 allotted the said land to the petitioner for the purpose of installation of petrol pump, workshop, Dharamshala and Waterhut on the terms and conditions stipulated in the order itself and the aforesaid land were given on lease for a period of 99 years. (5). For the purposes of according sanction and permission the District Magistrate called a report from the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar vide its report dated 5.4.76 certified that the aforesaid land was fit for installation of petrol pump. Thereafter, the Tehsildar issued a demand notice under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act demanding Rs. 26,631/- as premium. (6). The petitioner against the demand notice issued by the Tehsildar represented before the Collector and submitted that as the petitioner has already spent about Rs. 35,000/- for the construction of Dharmshala and Waterhut and all the terms and conditions have been complied with by the petitioner the allotment may be regularised in favour of the petitioner. (7). The Collector, Sikar vide its order dated 29.11.78 rejected the objections of the petitioner holding that the State Government has only released the land from forest and did not transpire under what powers, the Collector has changed the soil class of the land and under what provisions of law, allotment has been made to the petitioner. It was also given out by the Collector that the order has been passed by the District Development Officer, which has not been approved by the Collector. It was also given out by the Collector that the order has been passed by the District Development Officer, which has not been approved by the Collector. The Collector further held that the State Government was competent to fix the rate of premium and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of premium according to the notice dated 20.9.78 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority II, Jaipur. The same was rejected vide order dated 8.11.79. (8). The petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 8.11.79 and the Board of Revenue rejected the second appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 31.10.86. (9). Aggrieving and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue this present petition is preferred by the petitioner before this Court by way of invoking the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (10). After admission of the writ petition the matter came up for final disposal on 2.7.2001. After hearing the matter at length this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to specify as under what provision the first initial order Annexure-A by which the State Government had converted the forest land into the revenue land had been passed for the reason that if the initial order was without competence, all consequential orders became nullity. (11). Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the petitioner made a detailed submission though this fact was not disputed that the land in question is a forest land. (12). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time no rules whatsoever with relation to the allotment of land to install the petrol pump were framed and Industrial Area Allotment Rules 1959 were applicable to the instant case and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1959 the petitioner deposited the amount in view of the notice dated 17.8.78 issued by the Tehsildar. The subsequent demand raised by the respondents with relation to deposit the amount of Rs. 36,597.50 as a conversion charge is under the new law which is not applicable. The provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of agricultural land for establishment of petrol pump) Rules, 1973 are not applicable. (13). The subsequent demand raised by the respondents with relation to deposit the amount of Rs. 36,597.50 as a conversion charge is under the new law which is not applicable. The provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of agricultural land for establishment of petrol pump) Rules, 1973 are not applicable. (13). He further submits that for the public purpose the Collector is empowered to change the land use by invoking the power under Section 92 of the Land Revenue Act read with Section 102 of the Act. (14). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Collector Sikar vide its order dated 29.11.78 have rightly observed that the petitioner have to deposit the premium and rent as the Addl. Collector has passed the allotment order without seeking approval from the Collector. It is also given out that the Revenue Appellate Authority has upheld the order dated 29.11.78 passed by the Collector Sikar. (15). He further submits that the Board of Revenue has rightly upheld the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 8.11.79 and the order of Collector Sikar dated 29.11.78. (16). Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully examined the provisions of Rules as well as allotment order and the orders passed by the Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue dated 29.11.78, 8.11.1979 and 31.10.86 respectively. It is not disputed that the land which has been set apart for installation of petrol pump belongs to the forest department. (17). The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the Allotment Rules of 1973, which came into force w.e.f. 28.3.74 are not applicable to the instant case as the land was allotted in favour of the petitioner on 20.9.72. The conversion matter was pending after the land, which was released by the forest department and handed over to the revenue department in the year 1972 and in the meantime the rules 1973 came into force. Since the regularisation order has not been passed, the respondents have rightly demanded the conversion amount in view of the Rules 1973. (18). Even otherwise also initially the allotment order passed by the Addl. Collector is no doubt was without competence and after passing the allotment order no approval and sanction was procured from the Collector. (19). Since the regularisation order has not been passed, the respondents have rightly demanded the conversion amount in view of the Rules 1973. (18). Even otherwise also initially the allotment order passed by the Addl. Collector is no doubt was without competence and after passing the allotment order no approval and sanction was procured from the Collector. (19). Without entering into the controversy that the initial order itself is without jurisdiction, since the petitioner already installed the petrol pump and since 30 years the aforesaid petrol pump is in operation, at this stage I do not want to enter into this controversy regarding competence of the initial order. Upon perusal of the orders passed by the Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue dated 29.11.78, 8.11.79 and 31.10.86 respectively, I find no infirmity in the orders and the orders do not require any interference by this Court. (20). As per the terms and conditions the petitioner constructed the Dharmshala and Waterhut but the petitioner has not fully complied with the conditions as stipulated in the order dated 20.9.72. As per the terms and conditions the petitioner have to give the Dharmshala and Waterhut for public use but the same arrangement has not been made by the petitioner with relation to the use of Dharmshala and Waterhut for public purposes as contended by learned counsel for the respondents. (21). I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to provide Dharmshala and Waterhut for public use and the SDO/Tehsildar Fatehpur is also directed to ensure that the Dharmshala and Waterhut are being provided for general public use. (22). As it is given out that the money demanded by notice dated 17.8.78 is already deposited by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to verify this fact and proceed further in accordance with the provisions of law. (23). Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is herewith dismissed with no order as to costs.