Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 67 (RAJ)

Balu v. Prithvi Raj Singh

2005-01-09

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Honble K.S. RATHORE, J.—The controversy involved in the writ petition is with regard to allotment of land in favour of the petitioner being minor. (2). The complainants-Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a complaint that the petitioner at the time of allotment in his favour was minor. On the complaint, the Additional Collector, Tonk vide order dated 15.12.1984 upheld the allotment order dated 3.2.1983 in favour of the petitioner. Against which the Respondent No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellant Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 14.3.1989 set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. (3). The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 4.3.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue uphold the order of the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 19.7.1994. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Board of Revenue. (4). Aggrieving and dissatisfying with the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal as well as review petition, the petitioner preferred present writ petition. (5). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is able to show that the petitioner was not minor at the time of allotment by placing horoscope and ration card. (6). This fact is controverted by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that concurrent findings are given by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to get the land allotted in his favour and the petitioner was also not able to prove that he was major at the time of allotment. (7). Learned Counsel for the parties referred several judgments in their favour. (8). The basic dispute is with regard to the fact whether the petitioner at the time of allotment was minor or not. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue have given concurrent findings against the petitioner and Additional Collector, Tonk has considered the petitioner as major. (9). Since, several disputed questions of facts are involved in the writ petition, without interfering with the possession as claimed by the parties, in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to remit the matter back to the Additional Collector, Tonk to hear the matter afresh on the aspect of age as well as legality of the allotment. (9). Since, several disputed questions of facts are involved in the writ petition, without interfering with the possession as claimed by the parties, in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to remit the matter back to the Additional Collector, Tonk to hear the matter afresh on the aspect of age as well as legality of the allotment. It is for the Additional Collector, Tonk to also take into account whether the respondents are entitled to get the allotment in their favour or not. The Additional Collector, Tonk after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties shall pass the fresh order. The order dated 15.12.1984 passed by Additional Collector, judgment dated 14.3.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and judgment dated 19.7.1994 are hereby quashed and set aside. Till any order is passed by the Additional Collector, Tonk, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as exists today. (10). With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.