Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1291 (RAJ)

Charan Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-02

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By the order dated 03.05.1983 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner for permanent allotment of land under the Rajasthan Colonization (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment & Sale) Rules, 1956. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikarnapur by the order dated 03.05.1985 held that the petitioner was having 17.11 bighas of land, therefore, he could not be treated as a person landless as defined under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1956. While computing the land measuring 17 bighas 11 biswas the Sub-divisional Officer taken into consideration 8 bighas of land already possessed by the petitioner, 3.10 bighas of land acquired by the petitioner from his ancestors and 6 bighas of land said to be purchased by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which came to be accepted by the Judgment dated 12.09.1983. The Revenue Appellate Authority by the Judgment dated 12.09.1983 held that no sufficient material was available on record to hold that the petitioner was having land more than 15 bighas and also that there was no material available on record with regard to the purchase of 6 bighas of land by the petitioner. The Revenue Appellate Authority in these circumstances remanded the matter to the SDO for deciding the same afresh after getting the copies of the relevant Jamabandis from the Tehsildar concerned. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by the Judgment -dated 29.04.1988 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Board of Revenue held that the petitioner was having 8 bighas of land with him and he acquired 3 ½ bighas of land from his ancestors. The Board of Revenue further held that the father of the petitioner was having 25 ½ bighas of land and after his death the entire land is required to be taken into consideration to determine the fact as to whether the petitioner was land less person or not. The Board of Revenue further held that the father of the petitioner was having 25 ½ bighas of land and after his death the entire land is required to be taken into consideration to determine the fact as to whether the petitioner was land less person or not. On that basis the Board of Revenue held that the petitioner was having the land more than 15 bighas, therefore, he could not be treated as a person landless as defined under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1956. It is relevant to note here that the Board of Revenue has not given any finding with regard to 6 bighas of land which was said to be purchased by the petitioner. 4. A review application was also filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue to review the Judgment dated 29.04.1988 but the same was also dismissed by the order dated 010.1991. Hence, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 29.04.1988 passed by the Board of Revenue. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue erred while taking into consideration the entire 25 ½ bighas of land owned by his father while considering the fact as to whether the petitioner was landless person or not. It is further stated that 3 ½ bighas of land was already taken into consideration which was acquired by the petitioner from his ancestors. As such the Board of Revenue erroneously taken into consideration 25 ½ bighas of land as the petitioners land while determining the fact with regard to landless person. It is also contended by him that in fact the issue with regard to 25 bighas of land was not at all before the Board of Revenue. The trial Court i.e., the Court of SDO, Srikaranpur held that the petitioner was having 17 bighas and 10 biswas of land by including the land measuring 6 bighas which was said to be purchased by the petitioner and the petitioner challenged that order before the Revenue Appellate Authority on the count that no such land was ever purchased by him. In view of it according to the Counsel for the petitioner the Board of Revenue travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it and as such committed an error apparent on the face of record while including 25 ½ bighas of land with the land owned by the petitioner. No reply to the writ petition is available on record. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and also perused the recorded available. From perusal of the order passed by Board of Revenue it is apparent that a question whether the petitioner ever purchased 6 bighas of land has not been at all considered but a totally new fact with regard to land owned by the father of the petitioner has been taken into consideration by the Board. It is relevant to note that the petitioners share in the ancestral land was already taken into consideration to the extent of 3 ½ bighas as such there was no occasion to include the complete 25 ½ bighas of land owned by the father of the petitioner as the land of the petitioner. 7. In view of it, the order passed by the Board of Revenue suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. The same, therefore, deserves to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. The order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 12.09.1983 is restored. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the directions given by the Revenue Appellate Authority by the Judgment dated 12.09.1983 within a period of 4 months from today. In the mean time the parties are required to maintain the status quo as existed today. No order as to cost.