Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1540 (RAJ)

Bira Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-24

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 23.05.1995 and the order dated 31.03.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner respectively. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was allotted land in Chak No. 2 K.M. in Murabba No. 37/43 in the year 1976. The adjoining Government land bearing Kila Nos. 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, and 17 was available to the Government for allotment as small patch. This small patch was allotted to the petitioner by the Allotting Authority on 17th February, 1984. 3. The Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner suo moto initiated proceedings under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1975), for cancellation of the allotment of the small patch made in favour of the petitioner by order dated 31st March, 1992. The Commissioner Colonisation cancelled the allotment of small patch made in favour of the petitioner by the order dated 31st March, 1992. The cancellation was made by the Commissioner Colonisation on the count that the land allotted to the petitioner by the order dated 31st March, 1992, was not a small patch as defined under the Rules of 1975. It was further held that by merger of patch of land allotted to the petitioner with the land situated in Square No. 37/51 will conveniently form a block of land required for allotment under the Rules of 1975. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner Colonisation dated 31st March, 1992 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975 and the same also came to be rejected by the Judgment dated 23rd May, 1995. The Board of Revenue, while rejecting the revision petition held that the Commissioner Colonisation was justified in cancelling the small patch of land made in favour of the petitioner as it forms a block alongwith the Murabba No. 37/51. 5. The Board of Revenue, while rejecting the revision petition held that the Commissioner Colonisation was justified in cancelling the small patch of land made in favour of the petitioner as it forms a block alongwith the Murabba No. 37/51. 5. By the present writ petition, a challenge to the orders impugned is given by the petitioner on various grounds including that the small patch which was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1984 can now not be merged with the land situated in Block with Murabba No. 37/51 as the same already stands allotted to certain other persons including Fazal Khan s/o Lune Khan. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 15 bighas of land allotted to him in the year 1976 and the allotting authority after considering all relevant facts, allotted the small patch of land to him, as such the Commissioner Colonisation was having no authority interfering with the determination already made by the allotting authority with regard to nature of the land as to whether the same was small patch or not. 6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents in general, defending the orders passed by the Commissioner Colonisation and the Board of Revenue. 7. It is pertinent to note here that the averments made by the petitioner with regard to allotment of land to Fazal Khan s/o Lune Khan in Chak No. 37/51, have not been disputed by the respondents. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 9. It is position admitted that the small patch was allotted to the petitioner by the allotting authority in the year 1976. The allotting authority after making necessary inquiry, treated the land in question as small patch as defined under the Rules of 1975, and allotted the same to the petitioner. The land allotted to the petitioner was cancelled by the Commissioner Colonisation only on the count that the merger of the said land with the land situated in Square No. 37/51 shall form a block of land. It is position admitted between the parties that the land situated in Square No. 37/51 has already been allotted to certain other persons including Fazal Khan s/o Lune Khan. 10. In view of it, the land said to be merged with the land situated in Square No. 37/51, is now not available for merger. It is position admitted between the parties that the land situated in Square No. 37/51 has already been allotted to certain other persons including Fazal Khan s/o Lune Khan. 10. In view of it, the land said to be merged with the land situated in Square No. 37/51, is now not available for merger. The small patch which was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1984, in these circumstances, shall remain open land, as now it cannot be merged with the land situated in Square No. 37/51. No useful purpose now be served, if the respondents be permitted to cancel the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner. It is further relevant to note that the allotment of land was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1984 and he is regularly cultivating the land. This Court also be an order dated 30th August, 1995 directed the parties to the proceedings to maintain status quo then existing. In view of it, the possession of the land in question is with the petitioner and he is cultivating the land for last more than 20 years. 11. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall now be served by giving effect to the order of cancellation. In view of it, the petition for writ is allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner Colonisation dated 31st March, 1982 and the order dated 23rd May, 1995 passed by the Board of Revenue are hereby quashed. The order dated 17th February, 1984 is ordered to be restored. No order as to cost.