Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1761 (RAJ)

Dhula v. Banshi Lal

2005-07-12

SANJAY DIXIT

body2005
DIXIT, MEMBER—This second appeal has been filed under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority. Dungarpur dated 9.1.2001. (2). Briefly, the facts of the case are that in village Palawada, Dungarpur, 6 bighas of land was allotted to the appellant in khasra No. 3565 by the Allotting Advisory Committee as a ghair khatedar. An application under Rule 44 of the Allotment Rules was made to the Collector, which was rejected vide decision of the Collector, Dungarpur dated 25.7.1986. An appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and the decision of the Collector was upheld on 14.7.1987. As a result, the allotment of the appellant was upheld. (3). Another application under Section 14(4) was made to the Collector Dungarpur on 16.3.2000 and was decided on 17.5.2000 by which the allotment of the respondent was cancelled. On an appeal being made to the Revenue Appellate Authority, the order of the Collector was dismissed. (4). The counsel for the appellants argued that since the conditions of allotment had not been fulfilled, it was not proper for Revenue Appellate Authority to come to a conclusion. It was argued that the patwaris report clearly indicate the breach of conditions. However, the Revenue Appellate Authority in his order has not discussed the point of the breach of the conditions at all and without applying his mind to the ruling has set aside the order of the Collector erroneously. (5). The counsel placed reliance on 2001 RRD page 465 wherein it has been held that if the conditions of the allotment have been breached, it is perfectly legal for the Government to take the possession of such land back into its own hands. (6). The counsel for the respondents argued that the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority was just and proper, as the Collector had wrongly interpreted the provisions of res judicata, in his order. As far as the point regarding res judicata, a plain reading of the two applications reveals that the matter in the two applications were entirely different. It was also argued that the patwaris report was without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents and such a report, therefore, could not be read. As far as the point regarding res judicata, a plain reading of the two applications reveals that the matter in the two applications were entirely different. It was also argued that the patwaris report was without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents and such a report, therefore, could not be read. It was further argued that it was not possible for the patwari to come to a conclusion in his report regarding what had happened back in 1986, 1987 and 1988. The application under Section 14(3) had been made in the year 2000, (7). Heard the counsel for both the sides and went through the records. (8). The counsel for the appellant cited 1995 RRD page 156 and said that if the breach of condition was under intimidation, then the breach can be allowed. The said land was allotted back in 1986 and litigation for cancellation of these very lands was undergone in 1986 as well as 1987. The then applicant was also one of the applicants in that application, and appears to be the brother of the two appellants in the present appeal. There has to be a very good reason for the Court to assume that this is not a case of witch-hunting. The records, which are made available to us do not establish as to how the patwari can come to a definite conclusion regarding breach of condition after 18 years. At the same time, the order passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is laconic and suffers from lack of clarity. An order is also bad in law if it does not analyse the ratio of the rulings that are put forth. In the present case the ruling RRD 2001 page 465 (supra), is relevant, but the other ruling submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent 1995 RRD page 656 does not appear to be relevant. As no grounds have been spelt forth anywhere in the order of R.A.A. or in the memo of appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, it appears, therefore, to met that justice in the present case cannot be done without a detailed enquiry into the breach of conditions. At the same time the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is bad in law for the reasons enumerated above. At the same time the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is bad in law for the reasons enumerated above. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and remand this case to the Collector with the direction that the case may be decided afresh after a detailed enquiry is made by an official not below the rank of Tehsildar and after giving a complete opportunity to the respondents to prove whether they had fulfilled the conditions of the allotment.