ARVTND, MEMBER — This is an appeal under Section 76 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the order dated 16.9.82 of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur passed in appeal no. 298/82 in Kistur Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, by which he has set aside the order passed by learned Distt. Collector, Nagaur in Case No. 53/78. 2. Briefly, the facts as per the appeal are that Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta by his order dated 26.7.72 illegally regularised the possession of non-petitioners No. 2 to 18 on 8 bighas each and to non-petitioner No. 11, 6 bighas 11 biswas. Against this illegal orders of regularisation the villagers made a complaint to the District Vigilance Committee in the district and on that complaint enquiry was got conducted by District Collector from the successor Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta. Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta in his enquiry found that the regularisations were based on fraud and misrepresentation of the facts. On this report learned District Collector registered case under section 14(4) of the Land Allotment Rules, 1970 and notices were issued to the non-petitioners No. 2 to 11 and after hearing the concerned parties learned District Collector found the regularisations obtained through fraud and misrepresentation of facts and cancelled the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 26.7.72 by his order dated 16.9.82. Aggrieved by this order of learned Collector dated 16.9.82, the non-petitioners No. 2 to 11 went into appeal before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. Learned R.A.A. Jodhpur by his order dated 13.2.89 ordered to set aside order of learned Distt. Collector, Nagaur. This is a second appeal against the order of learned R.A.A. Jodhpur. 3. Arguing in support of the appeal, the contention of learned advocate On behalf of the appellants is that the orders of allotments/secularisations were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. He also argued that out of the disputed land 30 bighas of Khasra No. 112 belonged to Gopikishan husband of Geeta as khatedar and the remaining land which was allotted to the non-petitioners No. 2 to 11 had already been allotted to the persons of scheduled castes under the "Gandhi Centenary Celebration Programme", as such the land which was allotted through regularisations was neither Government land nor available for allotment as Government land. That as per the reply given to learned Distt. That as per the reply given to learned Distt. Collector, the non-petitioners No. 2 to 11 made a statement that the land had already been allotted to them and this was not a correct statement because had the land been allotted earlier there was no need of re-allotment or regularisation. That the procedure provided under the Allotment Rules of 1970 were not followed. Regularisation is also covered by the Allotment Rules. The recommendation of Advisory Committee was not obtained nor any proclamation was made for allotment but the land was got regularised in collusion. That the disputed land had already been allotted to the people of scheduled castes but the then Sub-Divisional Officer obtained the surrender from the people of scheduled caste under threats and obtained in writing that the land was not worth cultivation. On the one hand the Sub- Divisional Officer obtained report that the land was not worth cultivation and on the other hand on the same date learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Merta allotted the land by regularisations to the non-petitioners No. 2 to 11. He also argued that the appellants No. 1 and 2 never surrendered their 30 bighas land of khatedari but that land was also included in regularisation. He also argued that learned Revenue Appellate Authority did not even recorded the pleadings of the appellants nor referred to the authorities referred. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority did not even call for the record of the case and without obtaining file of regularisation accepted the appeal of the non-petitioners. Learned Distt. Collector, Nagaur relied on the enquiry report of the successor Sub-Divisional Officer but the learned R.A.A., Jodhpur did not even call for that enquiry report. He also argued that learned R.A.A. has wrongly mentioned in his decision that no documents or evidence was produced, whereas the appellants submitted certified copies of the jamabandi with an application but the learned R.A.A. ignored this fact in his decision. He also argued that the regularisations to non-petitioners No. 2 to 11 was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and such an order can be cancelled at any time and Honble High Court in a D.B. case of Sohan Kanwar vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. has cancelled the allotment which was as old as 30 years. He also argued that the regularisations to non-petitioners No. 2 to 11 was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and such an order can be cancelled at any time and Honble High Court in a D.B. case of Sohan Kanwar vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. has cancelled the allotment which was as old as 30 years. It would be appropriate to re-produce the Head Note of this case which has bee reported in 2002 RRD page 1:— "Raj, Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, Rule 14(4) - Cancellation of allotment - Allotment obtained by petitioner-appellant by misrepresenting the fact that she was landless person whereas 43 bighas 5 biswas land already existing in favour of her husband - Petitioner acquired khatedari rights after 10 years - Allotment cancelled by Collector after 30 years - Validity of - Held, allotment order being bad in eye of law being obtained by misrepresentation can be said to be ineffective - Conferment of khatedari right is only consequential which also cannot be maintained - Long lapse of time cannot be considered sufficient to save such allotment order obtained by misrepresentation - Order of Collector not liable to be interfered with". 4. Arguing on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 1, State, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has contended that the decision of learned Distt. Collector, Nagaur is based on facts because the disputed land was got surrendered from the appellants and on the same day this land was allotted to the non-petitioners No. 2 to 11. Land was allotted through regularisation without resorting to proper procedure and this in itself is sufficient to prove the fraud that when the land was got surrendered under threat which was got recorded that the land was not worth cultivation, whereas this is surprising as to how this land became worth cultivation on the same day. It proves that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer acted in collusion. It proves that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer acted in collusion. He invited our attention towards the order of learned Collector, Jodhpur dated 18.11.82 which explains the background of fraud in this matter:— ^^mDr vuoku ds ekeys esas fnukad 26-7-72 dks xzke [ksMqyh ds [k-ua- 112 jdck 78 ch?kk 11 fcLok dk fu;eu mi[k.M vf/kdkjh esM+rk }kjk vizFkhZx.k ds uke fd;k x;k FkkA mDr vknsk ds fo:} (suo moto) ekeyk jktLFkku Hkw jktLo ¼d`f"k iz;kstukFkZ Hkw vkaoVu½ fu;e 170 ds fu;e 14¼4½ ds vUrxZr ntZ fd;k x;kA fu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi layXu gSA oDr fu;eu fooknxzLr Hkwfe dCtk jfgr iM+r ljdkjh Hkwfe ugh gksdj eq- xhrk ds ifr ds uke [kkrsnkjh ,oa vU; gfjtuksa ds uke vkaoVukqnk FkhA dCts ,oa [kkrsnkjh dh tehu dks vizkFkhZx.k ds uke dCtk ntZ dj fu;eu ds vksnk ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA fu;eu dh dk;Zokgh esa vizkFkhZx.k dks uktk;t ykHk igqpkus ds ihNs iVokjh ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh dk izPNu mn~ns; gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA [kkrsnkjh dh tehu ckcr~ LFkkuh; ,oa jsdkMZ dh tkudkjh gksrs gq, Hkwfe gMius dh lkftk lqfu;ksftr ;kstuk ls dh xbZ tks diViw.kZ o tkylkth] fu;eksa ds fo:} vkSj xyr rF; crkdj fu;eu fd;k x;k gS tks mudh nqjkxzgiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dh izrhd gSA vr% buds f[kykQ vuqkklukRed dk;Zokgh visf{kr gS^^A He also argued that before initiating any action of cancellation the learned Distt. Collector got an enquiry done by the successor Sub-Divisional Officer and as per the enquiry it was found that the people of the weaker sections were debarred from possession by obtaining surrender under threat and the same land was allotted on the same day to the non-petitioners without resorting to any procedure. He also invited our attention to the fact mentioned in decision of learned Distt. Collector as per para 3 of page 2 which reads as under :— ^^¼1½ fooknxzLr Hkwfe rkjh[k 26-7-72 dks ljdkjh Hkwfe ugh gksdj vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke vkaoVu dh gqbZ FkhA ¼2½ fooknxzLr Hkwfe rkjh[k ij uktk;t dCtk dh fjiksVZ iVokjh vFkok vkaofV;ku }kjk ugh dh xbZA ¼3½ fooknxzLr Hkwfe ij uktk;t dCtk] [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe ckcr tkap ugh dh xbZA ¼4½ fu;eu flQkfjk uk;c rglyhnkj vFkok rglhynkj }kjk ugh dh xbZ FkhA ¼5½ Hkwfe vkaVu ijkekZnk=h lfefr dk dkSje iwjk ugh Fkk o u ijkekZ fd;k x;kA ¼6½ fu;eu ds vknsk ikfjr djus ds iwoZ izfdz;k dk ikyu fd;s fcuk fu;eu lEHko ugh Fkk^^A He also argued that in his decision learned Distt. Collector has clearly mentioned that it was a matter of fraud done in collusion and the then Sub-Divisional Officer in collusion with the partied facilitated the grabbing of the land. He invited our attention to the District Collectors judgment, which reads as under :— ^^mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ,oa iVokjh gYdk }kjk dh xbZ bl dk;Zokgh ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd oks fooknxzLr Hkwfe vizkFkhZx.k dks nsus esas :fp j[krs FksA blfy;s Hkwfe gM+ius dh lkftk dhA vizkFkhZx.k dks uktk;t Qk;nk nsus ds fy;s izPNu mn~ns; dh izkfIr ds fy;s jsdkMZ ,oa fu;eksa dks rkd esa j[kdj iwoZ ds dCts o [kkrsnkjh ds rF;ksa dks Nqik dj tkylkth ls diVhiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dh blesa eq[; Hkwfedk iVokjh ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh nksuksa dh jghA blfy;s nksuksa gh vf/kdkjh;ksa ds fo:} vuqkklukRed dk;Zokgh ds fy, vyx ls fy[kk tkosA mijksDr fooj.k ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd orZeku ekeys esa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us tkylkth ls xyr rF; vafdr djds] fu;e ds fo:}] fu;eu ds vknsk ikfjr fd;s gS tks fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% jktLFkku d`f"k iz;kstukFkZ Hkw vkoaVu fu;eksa ds fu;e 14¼4½ esa iznr kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vknsk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh esMrk fnukad 26-7-72 tks fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ls 10 ds ckcr~ fn;k x;k gS dk ,rn~}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA Hkwfe dk bUnzkt iwoZor~ cgky fd;k tkosA^^ 5. Nobody was present on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 2 to 11. 6. Having heard the appellants No. 1 & 2, having heard the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, having perused the record and having perused the decision of learned Distt. Collector and learned R.A.A., Jodhpur, following points emerge out of the above discussions:— (a) Learned R.A.A. has emphasised only on the one point that no document or evidence was present to him by the appellants but he has totally ignored the facts mentioned by learned Distt. Collector by which he has mentioned in his decision that disciplinary action to be taken against the then revenue officers. Learned R.A.A. has totally ignored this factum of fraud and misrepresentation and he has failed to give sufficient reason for disagreeing with the findings of learned Distt. Collector which are based on the subsequent enquiries of successive officers who are independent persons. Learned R.A.A. has totally ignored this factum of fraud and misrepresentation and he has failed to give sufficient reason for disagreeing with the findings of learned Distt. Collector which are based on the subsequent enquiries of successive officers who are independent persons. The order of learned R.A.A., Jodhpur per se seems to be arguing in favour of the persons who obtained regularisation through fraud and misrepresentation and his decision is not logical and the allegation that the documents presented by the appellants were not taken on record create some suspicion on the conclusions derived by the learned R.A.A. (b) That from the perusal of the record I could nowhere found that the proper procedure was resorted to before making regularisations. There is a set procedure for allotments/regularisation but this procedure has not been adopted. The file regarding enquiry against delinquent officers is before us and in this file jamabandi and mutations are available at page 35 and 36 in which land of khasra No. 112 measuring 30 bighas has been recorded in the name of Gopikishan son of Chhittar Mal Nai, whose widows is the appellant here. There is no evidence on the file as to how this land was snatched form a widow of Gopikishan. The application of the widow of Gopikishan is also available at page 44 in which she has alleged as under:— ^^vr% Jheku th lsok eas izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj djc} fuosnu gS fd izkfFkZ;k dh Hkwfe ij U;k;ksfpr dCtk fnyokus gsrq vknsk Qjekos rkfd fo/kok vius cky cPpksa dks lgh <ax ls ikyu iks"k.k dj vkfFkZd dfBukbZ ls NqVdkjk ik ldsA^^ To support the contention of the widow Geeta report of a Naib Tehsildar one Shri Kan Singh is also available at page 45, which reveals the fraudulent action and collusion done under the leadership of the then Sub-Divisional Officer. It would be appropriate to re-produce the report of Naib Tehsildar, Merta dated 8.8.77, which has been certified by Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta:— ^^;g dkrdkjku bl Hkwfe ij dCtk fd, gq, gSA tc mDr uEcj esa ls 30 ch?kk Hkwfe Jh xksihfdku dks igys nh tk pqdh Fkh vkSj mldk jskdMZ esa vey gks pqdk FkkA vkSj ekSds ij mldk dCtk gks pqdk FkkA rks fQj blh uEcj dh iwjh tehu dks bu bl dkrdkjku dks D;kssa dj fu;eu dh xbZA ;g izu fopkj.kh; gSA bl le; izkfFkZ;k ds lkFk vU;k; o T;knrh fd;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA vr% vly i=koyh Jheku mi[k.M vf/kdkjh egkns; esM+rk dh lsok esa mfpr dk;Zokgh gsrq izLrqr gSA^^ (c) From the discussions above, the situation which emerges is that while the land of khasra No. 112 consists of big khasra number, some part of it had already been mutated in favour of Gopikishan on which his widow was in possession and remaining 72 bighas was illegally and fraudulently got surrendered from the people of scheduled castes and regularised in the names of influential people of the village in collusion with the then S.D.O. and in this respect there is no reason why the conclusions of learned Distt. Collector should not be relied upon. (d) The authority of Honble Rajasthan High Curt as reported in 2002 RRD page 1 is directly applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and I am duty bound to respectfully follow the principle laid down in that authority. 7. In view of the discussions above and in view of the principle laid down by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan, it is very much clear that the regularisation to the non-petitioners No. 2 to 11 was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and in collusion with the then S.D.O. and other revenue officers and the decision of learned Distt. Collector, Nagaur is based on facts and the conclusions have been logically derived. The decision of learned R.A.A., Jodhpur is one sided and it has totally ignored the issues raised by the learned Distt. Collector and the issues which are the basis of decision of learned Dist. Collector. As such the decision of learned R.A.A., Jodhpur is neither logical nor proper nor correct, hence it suffers from illegality and impropriety. In view of the discussions as above decision of learned R.A.A., Jodhpur is set aside and order of learned Distt. Collector and the issues which are the basis of decision of learned Dist. Collector. As such the decision of learned R.A.A., Jodhpur is neither logical nor proper nor correct, hence it suffers from illegality and impropriety. In view of the discussions as above decision of learned R.A.A., Jodhpur is set aside and order of learned Distt. Collector, Nagaur dated 16.9.82 is restored. The appeal is accepted. Pronounced.