Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3070 (RAJ)

Sohan Lal v. B. O. R. Ajmer

2005-11-21

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2005
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This writ petition has been submitted against the order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in Review Application No. 17/1998/Sriganganagar whereby the learned member of the Board has rejected the review application submitted by the petitioner and has maintained the order dated 16.07.1998 passed in Revision Petition No. 191/1990/Sriganganagar. 2. The revision petition aforesaid was submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 10.09.1990 passed by the Collector Sriganganagar in Case No. 252/1986 under Rule 22(3) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1975). The proceedings in the said Case No. 252/1986 were commenced on a report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation (Vigilance), Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area, Bikaner wherein it was submitted that on 15.05.1972 the petitioner was allotted the land of Khasra Nos. 24 and 57 at village Karadvali Ki Rohi on the basis of cultivatory possession prior to the year 1955; 25 bighas of land was allotted free of cost and 24.10 bighas on price. It was alleged that according to record, the land was not in cultivatory possession of the petitioner before the year 1955 and, therefore, the allotment was wrongly obtained. The Collector proceeded to pass the order dated 10.09.1990 after the petitioner failed to submit reply and it was observed that despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence of his cultivatory possession prior to year 1955 and, therefore, allotment of the land in question, now comprised in Murraba Nos. 125/319 and 125/318 in Chak 14 NWD Dabala, was ordered to be cancelled. 3. In the revision petition submitted against the order dated 10.09.1990 before the Board of Revenue, the petitioner filed certain documents in order to show the cultivatory possession of his father at the relevant time. Learned Member of the Board found that no such documents were filed before the Collector and the documents now submitted before the Board do not establish any cultivation prior to the year 1955. The learned member also found that even the parentage of the petitioner was not rightly stated by the Tehsildar, which also gives rise to strong suspicion. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed on 16.07.1998. 4. The learned member also found that even the parentage of the petitioner was not rightly stated by the Tehsildar, which also gives rise to strong suspicion. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed on 16.07.1998. 4. The petitioner submitted a review application against the order dated 16.07.1998 and the learned member, after referring to Clause 2(ix) of the Conditions of 1971 observed that it was for the petitioner to establish that his father, Rajaram was continuously in cultivatory possession of the land from the year 1955 upto the year 1971 and nobody else has been in possession in the intervening period but the record submitted by the petitioner with revision petition does not establish that his father was fulfilling such requirements. Therefore, learned member was of opinion that the allotment made to the petitioner cannot be said to be in accordance with the Rules. Overruling other objections of the petitioner, learned member rejected the review application. 5. In this writ petition assailing the orders aforesaid, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in question has continued in possession of the petitioners father right from the year 1953. He has placed reliance on the TC certificates dated 04.09.1953 (Annexure 1), dated 28.07.1956 (Annexure 2) and Jamabandi (Annexure 3) of the Samvat Years 2010 to 2013 (Equivalent to 1953 to 1956 AD). Learned Counsel submitted in the first place that the authorities were entirely wrong in attempting to take proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1975 after a lapse and about 10 years of the allotment and even therein the authorities have proceeded on entirely irrelevant considerations. It was for the department to establish that the allotment made in the year 1972 was obtained by the petitioner by concealment of any material fact. Learned Counsel further contended that in relation to this allotment, the Collector Sriganganagar even did not have jurisdiction to deal with and decide the application under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1975. 6. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has strenuously supported the orders impugned and submitted that in view of the conduct of the petitioner, the allotment has rightly been cancelled and it seems doubtful if the petitioner is at all cultivating the land in question. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has also produced for perusal the record of the proceedings in Case No. 252/1986. 7. Government Advocate has strenuously supported the orders impugned and submitted that in view of the conduct of the petitioner, the allotment has rightly been cancelled and it seems doubtful if the petitioner is at all cultivating the land in question. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has also produced for perusal the record of the proceedings in Case No. 252/1986. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, having perused the record and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is satisfied that in these proceedings adopted under Clause 22 of the Rules of 1975, as commenced on 30.09.1981, in relation to an allotment made on 14.02.1972, the petitioner has been denied a fair opportunity of hearing by the Collector Sriganganagar, and without considering the record of the case and the requirements of law, the learned Collector has proceeded to pass the order dated 10.09.1990 only because the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of cultivatory possession of the allottee prior to year 1955. In view of the documents, Annexure 1 to Annexure 3 produced in this writ petition, it appears prima facie that Rajuram was having the land in his possession and he was cultivating the same at least in the year 1953 and so also in the year 1956. The allotment in question was made as back as in the year 1972 and the authorities concerned proceeded to adopt the proceedings under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1975 only in the year 1981. Learned Collector has also proceeded to deal with the matter at a leisurely pace and consecutively a number of dates of hearing have resulted in adjournments because of the Presiding Officer having gone on tour. Having regard to the questions involved in the case, it appears appropriate that an opportunity of hearing be extended to the petitioner to put forward his entire case before the final orders are passed on the proceedings initiated under Rule 22(3) Rules of 1975. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Collector, Sriganganagar to restore Case No. 252/1986 and to decide the same after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Collector, Sriganganagar to restore Case No. 252/1986 and to decide the same after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. As a result of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed to extent indicated above; impugned orders dated 10.09.1990 (Annexure 5), dated 16.07.1998 (Annexure 6) and dated 29.03.2001 (Annexure 7) are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector, Sriganganagar to restore Case No. 252/1986 to its original number and decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and permitting him to place the material in support of his submissions. The parties shall appear before the Collector, Sriganganagar on 04.01.2006 and thereafter the Collector shall decide the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as any expression of opinion on merits of the case by this Court. Learned Dy. G.A. shall ensure that the record in relation to this case reaches the Collector without delay. 10. No order as to costs.