Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 313 (RAJ)

Sajan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-02

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Honble MATHUR, J.–The petitioner by this petition for writ has given challenge to the order dated 15.7.1987 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) Bikaner whereby the land allotted to him under Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as ``the Act of 1954) was cancelled. The petitioner has also assailed validity of the order dated 16.10.1992 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner in Appeal No. 72/1992 and the order dated 25.8.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer in revision petition NO. 518/92/LR Bikaner whereby the order dated 15.7.1987 was affirmed. (2). The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of present petition are that a land measuring 20 bigha and 5 biswa was allotted to the petitioner in Chak MKD by an order dated 24.2.1975 passed by the Allotment Officer in pursuance of the order dated 24.2.1975 possession of the land, allotted to the petitioner, was given on 19.7.1977 and the same was certified by the Circular Annexure-2 issued by the Patwari within the jurisdiction of Tehsildar; Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner. According to the petitioner after getting possession of the land in question he cultivated the land and was residing thereon. the respondents by the order impugned dated 15.7.1987 cancelled the allotment while exercising the powers under Section 11/14 of the Act of 1954. Prior to it no notice, as required under Section 14, was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that Section 11 of the Act of 1954 is having no application in the present controversy. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that Section 14 pertains to penalty for breach of conditions and these penalties could be, imposed only after following the procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Act of 1954. According to the counsel for the petitioner the procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Act of 1954 was not adhered by the respondents while cancelling the allotment made in his favour. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue also did not appreciate the provision of Section 14 and thus, all the orders suffer from an error which is apparent on the face of record. (3). I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue also did not appreciate the provision of Section 14 and thus, all the orders suffer from an error which is apparent on the face of record. (3). I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) Bikaner the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and also the order passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer. (4). The Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) Bikaner while exercising the powers under Section 14 of the Act of 1954 cancelled the allotment made in the favour of the petitioner on the count that a notice dated 17.6.1987 was issued and served upon the petitioner pointing out breach of the conditions pertaining to allotment of land and in pursuance of which no reply or explanation was given by the petitioner. The petitioner has denied the fact with regard to service of the notice dated 17.6.1987. (5). Be that as it may the controversy in precise is that whether the penalty of cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1954 or not. Section 14 of the Act of 1954 provides that when the Collector is satisfied that a tenant in possession of land in a colony has committed a breach of the conditions of tenancy, he may, after giving the tenant and opportunity of appear and state his objection may impose on the tenant prescribed punishment. Proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1954 provides that if the breach is capable of rectification the Collector shall not impose any penalty or order the resumption of the tenancy unless he has issued a written notice requiring the tenant to rectify the breach within a reasonable time, not being less than one month to be stated in the notice and the tenant has failed to comply with such notice. (6). In the present case, I am having no doubt that the condition alleged to be broken by the petitioner was capable of rectification and therefore, it was obligatory for the respondents to issue another notice to the petitioner requiring him to rectify breach within a reasonable time. Admittedly no such notice was given to the petitioner by the respondents. (6). In the present case, I am having no doubt that the condition alleged to be broken by the petitioner was capable of rectification and therefore, it was obligatory for the respondents to issue another notice to the petitioner requiring him to rectify breach within a reasonable time. Admittedly no such notice was given to the petitioner by the respondents. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner as well as the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, while adjudicating the appeal and revision petition preferred by the petitioner have not considered this aspect of the matter, and therefore, in my view both the order are perverse, no jurisdiction was vested with the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation), Bikaner to impose a penalty without first giving a notice to rectify the breach within a reasonable time. In totality of the facts, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 15.7.1987 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) deserves to be quashed being in violation of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1954. The orders affirming the original order therefore also deserves to be quashed. (7). Accordingly, the order dated 15.7.1987 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) and the subsequent orders affirming thereto are quashed. (8). The writ petition, therefor, stands allowed.