Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1914 (RAJ)

Bhanwer Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-26

V.K.BALI

body2005
Honble BALI, J.–Challenge in the present petition that has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order Annexure-9 dated 18.08.1992, that has been passed by the Revenue Minister. By virtue of the impugned order referred to above, an allotment made in favour of the petitioner of a land measuring 15 bigha was cancelled. (2). Brief facts of the case as projected in the petition reveal that the petitioner has no other agricultural land except for a piece of land measuring 15 bigha. He is stated to be a landless person and in that capacity, he moved an application to the competent authority for allotment of 15 bigha of land from out of arazi number 2088, which was in the classification of Gair Mumkin Parat. This application was made by him on 02.04.1967 which was duly processed and the petitioner was made allotment in accordance with Rajasthan Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1957). It is the case of the petitioner that after being allotted the land, the petitioner undertook the necessary agricultural operations by cleaning the land and cultivated it. With a view to improve the land, petitioner wanted to excavate well and he constructed necessary Pumb House and Store Room. On 28.05.1968, he moved an application to Tehsildar for this purpose where it was ordered that no permission is required as it amounts to improvement. (3). The Sub-Divisional Officer on some complaint, opened file wherein it was found that the petitioner had cultivated the land and has erected thorn fencing. It is the case of the petitioner that some persons inimically disposal towards the petitioner got activated and moved the State Government for cancellation of allotment and the State Government, in turn without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide order dated 07.01.1970 conveyed the sanction of cancellation of allotment and resumption of land by addressing communication to the Collector, Jalore. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner on 24.04.1970 submitted a review petition before the State Government raising number of grounds as mentioned therein. The Revenue Minister decided the petitioners review petition on 15.03.1973 and came to a positive conclusion that the petitioner had excavated a well after allotment of the land and same was in his possession since 03.09.1967. The review petition was accepted. The Revenue Minister decided the petitioners review petition on 15.03.1973 and came to a positive conclusion that the petitioner had excavated a well after allotment of the land and same was in his possession since 03.09.1967. The review petition was accepted. The case of the petitioner is that there is no provision for entertaining a review of an application made on an order of review. The order Annexure-7 in favour of the petitioner was passed by the Revenue Minister. It is, thus, averred that it was final and could not be challenged. Despite that, however, Nayab Tehsildar, the respondent No.3 herein chose to move a further review petition to the Honble Revenue Minister who vide impugned order Annexure-9 reviewed the order dated 03.09.1967. This order as mentioned above, has been challenged in the present petition. (4). Without going into the order contentions that have been raised in support of petition, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently contends that order Annexure-9 is not order in the eyes of law. Learned Revenue Minister after noting even though in detail, the facts rise to the review application, first noted the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent State. After doing so, he observed that since the Tehsildar of the department was not given proper opportunity of hearing, the case needed to be remanded. In the next paragraph, he noted that the Counsel for the petitioner before this Court had no instruction to argue the matter and yet noted the points taken by him and in the next para, he come to a conclusion without any process of reasons that the petitioner had not used the land as per Rule 14(3) of the land rules, he does not come in the definition of landless person as also he had violated the provisions of allotment by making four shops. These findings were arrived at without reference to the documents on record or in light of the contentions that were raised by the parties. (5). Learned Counsel representing respondents after reading and re-reading could not point out even a single sentence in the impugned order Annexure-9 which may show reasons for the conclusions arrived at by the learned Minister mentioned by him at page No.5. In confirmed view of this Court the order Annexure- 9 cannot sustain as it lacks the very requisites of judicial or a quasi-judicial order. In confirmed view of this Court the order Annexure- 9 cannot sustain as it lacks the very requisites of judicial or a quasi-judicial order. It is a non speaking cryptic order, bereft of any reasons made for that reason alone, it needs to be quashed. (6). The matter is remitted to the Revenue Minister for deciding it afresh. The Court is sanguine that the concerned Minister would record reason for the ultimate findings that may be arrived at by him. Writing only a long order as indeed has been done, does not necessary mean that the same contains reasons as well and that is what appears to have been precisely done in the present case. Counsel representing parties would inform the parties to appear before the Revenue Minister on 25.09.2005. (7). The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.