Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1646 (RAJ)

Kehar Singh v. State

2005-06-02

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Learned Counsel for the private respondents submits that matter may be heard and decided at this stage. Since, both the concerned parties are present before this Court and prayed for hearing, therefore, the writ petition itself is heard finally. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the private respondents in whose favour the impugned order has been passed and on the basis of which the petitioners were sought to be dispossessed form the land in question. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the purchaser of the land and successor of the purchaser of the land in dispute. The land was originally belonging to one Gopi Ram and that was sold by deed dated 7th June, 1971, which was registered on 18th August, 1971. The proceedings for eviction of the purchaser were initiated by initiating proceedings under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, but that was dismissed by the SDO, Sri Ganganagar on 17th November, 1980 holding that the purchase was not a transfer from a member of ST to non-ST. 4. The seller, thereafter, submitted an application before the competent authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 under Section 75. This application was filed on 30th September, 1993 after about 13 years from the rejection of petition under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The said proceedings are pending and according to learned Counsel for the petitioner next date fixed before the said authority is in the month of July, 2005. 5. It appears that on 17th December, 2004 in a campaign, Prashasan Aap-ke-Dwar (Administration at your door step), the petitioners submitted an application before the Officer Incharge (Admn) seeking possession of the land from the respondents. The said application was entertained by the said Officer Incharge (Admn) and it was marked to the Tehsildar, Sri Ganganagar on the same day on 17th December, 2004. On the same day on 17th December, 2004, the Tehsildar, Sri Ganganagar passed the order to evict the petitioner from the land in dispute and he endorsed the letter to Girdhawar. 6. Aggrieved against the above action the petitioners preferred the appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar, which was dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 28th December, 2004 holding that the appeal is misconceived as the order is not appealable. 7. 6. Aggrieved against the above action the petitioners preferred the appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar, which was dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 28th December, 2004 holding that the appeal is misconceived as the order is not appealable. 7. The petitioners thereafter submitted an application before the Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which is supervisory power of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioners application on the ground that the SDO has not passed any order in the application of the respondents, but he simply marked it to the Tehsildar concerned who passed the order of eviction and that order is not under the Act of 1954, therefore, even if that order may not be legal but is not appealable nor the order of Tehsildar could have been interfered under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents including the orders passed by the Officer Incharge (Admn) and the Tehsildar, Sri Ganganagar for eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute. 9. It appears from the facts mentioned above itself that the Officer Incharge (Admn) who was working in an administrative capacity in campaign, Administration at your door steps ¼izkklu vki ds }kj½ entertained the application for eviction of the petitioners in a matter where the eviction proceedings were dismissed by the competent officer under the provisions of Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and despite the fact that the proceedings under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was pending before competent authority, marked the said application to Tehsildar of the area concerned and the Tehsildar, without any authority of law passed the order of eviction of the petitioners. Since, the order was passed not under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or the Land Revenue Act, therefore, no appeal was maintainable against the said orders dated 17th December, 2004 and 19th December, 2004 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, the appeal of the appellant-petitioners was rightly dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority 10. Since, the order was passed not under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or the Land Revenue Act, therefore, no appeal was maintainable against the said orders dated 17th December, 2004 and 19th December, 2004 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, the appeal of the appellant-petitioners was rightly dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority 10. Since, the order was not passed under the above two Acts, therefore, the Board of Revenue also if dismissed the application of the petitioners under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Board of Revenue rightly rejected the application, but the fact remains is that the order dated 17th December, 2004 could have been challenged only by filing the writ petition by the petitioners and since the petitioners have preferred the writ petition challenging the order dated 17th December, 2004 passed by the Officer Incharge (Admn) and Tehsildar Sri Ganganager and Girdhawar and the orders on the face of it are wholly without jurisdiction, therefore, the writ petition of the petitioners deserves to be allowed, hence, allowed. The orders Annexure-6 dated 17th December, 2001 and Annexure-7 dated 19th December, 2004 are quashed and set aside. Both the Counsel admit that the petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute, therefore, there is no need to pass any order for restoration of the possession of the petitioners. The authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 is directed to decide the application filed under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1954 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, which may be supplied to the said authority by the petitioners as well as by the private respondents.