Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1066 (RAJ)

Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-04

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2006
Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-Since the dispute in both the writ petitions relates to allotment of land by order dated 18.07.1984 of 3 Bigha, 13 Biswa in Khasra No. 644 to late Shri Prithvi Lal, now represented through his legal representatives, out of which 2 Bigha, 7 Biswa land is being claimed by petitioner Santram in his khatedari of Khasra No. 644 which was reduced from khatedari by the Land Development Corporation during execution of project. Therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No. 5694/1994 has been filed against the order of allotment dated 18.07.1984 passed by the SDO, Kota and the order dated 09.05.1989 passed by the Additional Collector (CAD), Kota (wrongly referred by the petitioners in the prayer as “Assistant Collector”) whereby the Additional Collector (CAD), Kota held that the land of Siwai chak Khasra No. 644 has been allotted to the applicant on 18.07.1984 and in case the petitioner wants to make up the deficit of land from Siwai chak, as no Siwai chak land is available, he may apply to the Collector for setting-aside the category of the land as Siwai chak. 3. The another writ petition bearing No. 1553/1997 has been filed against the order dated 18.07.1984 passed by the SDO, Kota, order dated 211.1990 passed by the Collector, Kota, order dated 27.09.1991 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the order dated 111.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the subsequent writ petition Savitri Devi, wife of Santram has been impleaded as Petitioner No. 1 whereas Santram has been impeaded as petitioner No. 2. 4. The case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5694/94 is that they are the khatedars of the land comprising in khasras Nos. situated in village Simlia, Tehsil Digod, District Kota and measurement of which are as follows :- Khasra No. Measurement of the land 652 5 bigha 7 biswa 642 12 bigha 5 biswa 643 3 bigha 5 biswa 670 4 bigha 3 biswa 674 4 bigha 3 biswa Total 29 bigha 3 biswa. 5. situated in village Simlia, Tehsil Digod, District Kota and measurement of which are as follows :- Khasra No. Measurement of the land 652 5 bigha 7 biswa 642 12 bigha 5 biswa 643 3 bigha 5 biswa 670 4 bigha 3 biswa 674 4 bigha 3 biswa Total 29 bigha 3 biswa. 5. In the writ petition the petitioners have challenged the action of the Land Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) constituted under the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1975”) on the ground that the Corporation has no authority to reduce the land on the ground that the said rejection is without notice. The order of allotment dated 18.07.1984 and the order dated 09.05.1989 are under challenge in Writ Petition No. 5694/94. Vide Annexure-1 dated 212.1988, the Patwari submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Additional Collector (CAD), Kota in compliance to his order dated 6. The new Khasra No. 644 which was made of the old Khasra Nos. 307 and 308 was entered as Government land which included the lands of the petitioners of new Khasra Nos. 642 and 643. 7. The aforesaid facts have also been referred in the later writ petition bearing No. 1553/97 and further facts have been mentioned that the wife of the petitioner in her individual capacity filed an application before the Collector under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Agricultural Purposes Land Allotment) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1970”) challenging the allotment made to late Shri Prithvi Lal and further prayed for regularization of the said land in her favour for long possession. The said application was rejected by the Collector on 211.1990 holding that the said rules are not applicable and the rules applicable are the Rajasthan Colonization (Chambal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1957 (herein after referred to as “the Rules of 1957). Therefore, the same is not maintainable. The said application was rejected by the Collector on 211.1990 holding that the said rules are not applicable and the rules applicable are the Rajasthan Colonization (Chambal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1957 (herein after referred to as “the Rules of 1957). Therefore, the same is not maintainable. It appears that some application for cancellation of allotment of land under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957 was filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, Kota which was rejected on 27.07.1991, against which an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority rejected the same vide its Judgment dated 27.09.1991 on the ground that there is no error in allotting the government land to a landless person i.e., Respondent No. 5 Prithvi Lal. Against the said Judgment , the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue after elaborate discussions on the points, held that all the orders passed by the authorities below are in accordance with law as the allotment can be set-aside under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957 only on the ground of incorrect statement of facts made in the application or in the affidavit or in any other document produced by an allottee. The Board has further upheld the order of the Deputy Collector dated 27.07.1991 on the ground that the allottee is a landless person and the allotment has been made as per rule who has deposited the amount also and taken the possession and further the Board of Revenue has also considered the other aspects of the order of the Deputy Collector dated 27.07.1991 wherein it has also been considered that the applicants have failed to show at what place and of which number and further in whom khatedari land was given. 8. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed reply to the writ petition and submitted therein that the order passed by the Collector is in accordance with law as Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 is not applicable. The action taken by the respondents is in accordance of the Rajasthan Colonization (Chambal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1957, and the orders passed by the authorities below are in accordance with law. 9. The action taken by the respondents is in accordance of the Rajasthan Colonization (Chambal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1957, and the orders passed by the authorities below are in accordance with law. 9. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that out of total land of 3 bigha, 13 biswa allotted to the petitioners, 2 bigha and 7 biswa land of Khasra No. 644 belongs to the petitioners and the same could not have been reduced even by the Land Development Corporation and thus the action of the Corporation is wholly without jurisdiction. The further submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no justification for reduction of the khatedari land of the petitioner by 2 bigha, 7 biswa and allotment of the same to Respondent No. 5 without following the procedure as envisaged under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1957. The petitioner further submits that the Revenue authorities have not correctly appreciated the grievance raised by the petitioner and wrongly upheld the order on the ground that the land has been declared siwai chak after execution of the project by the Land Development Corporation and the same has been allotted as per rules to Respondent No. 5. 10. Mrs. Kamla Jain, the Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5/1 to 5/5 has not filed any reply and she has submitted orally on the basis of the record of the case that the Writ Petition No. 5694/1994 is not maintainable as the alternate remedy was available to the petitioners under Section 40 of the Act of 1975 which was not availed by them, otherwise also the same was premature. 11. As regards second writ petition, it was submitted by her that appeal (Annexure 3) before the Revenue Appellate Authority was filed against the order dated 27.07.1991 but the said order has not been placed on record and a perusal of writ petition would reveal that the appeal has been filed against the order of the Collector dated 211.1990 (Annexure 2), which is not correct. The further submission of the Counsel for the respondents is that in Para No. 3 of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, it has been considered that allotment of land to make deficit good is not within its jurisdiction and further an application for cancellation of allotment could only be entertained if there was misrepresentation or concealment of facts in wrong way in procuring the allotment but in the instant case, after catchment the land was declared Siwai chak which has been allotted as per rule vide allotment order dated 18.07.1984, against which no appeal was filed under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1957. Therefore, the application was rightly dismissed by the Deputy Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority also rightly dismissed the appeal. The further submission of the Counsel for the respondents is that the Board of Revenue has rightly came to the conclusion that the order dated 27.07.1991 has been passed under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957. Under Rule 22, the allotment can only be set aside if the same has been on an incorrect statement of facts made in the application or in the affidavit or any other document produced by the allottee. The Board has rightly come to the conclusion that no incorrect statement has been made and no incorrect document was produced by the allottee since the land was Siwai chak, therefore, the allotment was valid. The petitioner has neither filed any appeal before the Appeallate Tribunal nor the Land Development Corporation and its functionaries are impleaded as a party nor any specific relief for setting aside the order of reduction of land by 2 bigha, 7 biswa by the Land Development Corporation or decategorisation of the same has been claimed in these writ petitions. Thus, the order of reduction of land as well as allotment attained finality. Therefore, the Board rightly upheld the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision petition on the ground that there is no serious fault or error in the Judgment . 12. I have considered the record of the writ petitions and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. Therefore, the Board rightly upheld the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision petition on the ground that there is no serious fault or error in the Judgment . 12. I have considered the record of the writ petitions and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 20.12.1988 of reconstitution of the khasras and the measurements of which are as follows : [k0u0 jdck [k0u0 jdck & ½ 652 5/2 658 5-14 -- 642 121 642 13/3 21/2 - 643 3 1 643 670 4/3 670 3-1113 1/-- 674 4/3 678 4-1 -/2 ;ksx 29/3 27 2-112 ¼. 13. Rules 17 and 22 of the Rules of 1957 are as under :- “17. Appeal and Revision :- .(1) Anyperson aggrieved by an order of allotment made by the Allotting Authority may, within 30 days from the date of such order, appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority. .(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, may, within 60 days from the date of such order, file revision to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. 22. Powers of Cancellation :- .(1) If at any time it is discovered that any allotment of Government land was made under these rules upon an incorrect statement of facts made in the application or in the affidavit or any other document produced by an allottee, the Allotting Authority may order cancellation of such allotment and may also order re-entry upon and taking possession of the land without payment of any compensation. .(2) Provided that no order mentioned at Sub-rule (1) to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard”. (Emphasis Supplied) 14. The relevant facts with regard to the order dated 27.07.1991 and filing of the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and revision before the Board of Revenue at page No. 2 of the certified copy of the Judgment of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 111.1995 as well as relevant portion of the aforesaid Judgment of the Board of Revenue at page No. 4 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference : At page No. 2 of the certified copy of the Judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 111.1995 : (Emphasis Supplied) 15. From the record it is clear that Annexure-1 has been passed after completion of the Land Development Project whereby the land of the petitioner was reduced by 2 bigha, 7 biswa by the Land Development Corporation and the said reduction and declaration of the land as Siwai chak have not been challenged by the petitioners either by filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 40 of the Act of 1975 nor by filing specific application before the Collector to decategorised the same from Siwai chak. The application which was filed by the petitioners was under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 and then under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957 to cancel the allotment. Apart from reduction, while making realignment the Corporation has given some more land in some other khasra no. and even there is provision for payment of compensation also, but there is no specific assertion that no compensation has been given. The petitioners have neither impleaded the Land Development Corporation and its officers as party nor made any specific prayer with regard to illegality of the said reduction and de-categorisation of the land from Siwai chak. Both the aforesaid orders attained finality. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the first argument of the Counsel for the petitioners that the order of reduction of the land is without jurisdiction. 16. The order of the Collector dated 211.1990 has not been challenged by the petitioners before any of the higher Revenue authorities for the reason that the application was dismissed by the Collector on the ground that Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 is not applicable as allotment has been made under the Rajasthan Colonization (Chambal Project Government Land Allotment And Sale) Rules, 1957. Neither the facts of the order dated 27.07.1991 have been mentioned nor the order has been produced by the petitioner nor the same has been challenged in the writ petitions, although in further proceeding of the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and revision before the Board of Revenue, there is reference of the order of the Deputy Collector dated 27.07.1991 passed under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957 in the Judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 111.1995. A bare perusal of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957 as referred herein above, would reveal that application for cancellation of allotment can only lie in case there is incorrect statement of facts made in the application for allotment or in the affidavit or any other document produced by the allottee. The Deputy Collector rightly held that none of the aforesaid contingencies exists, therefore, the said application was rightly dismissed. The aforesaid facts have been elaborately referred in the Judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 111.1995. The order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal as well as of the Board of Revenue in revision warrants no interference. 17. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the allotment order dated 18.07.1984 under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1957 within 30 days or thereafter and filed application under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957, therefore, the petitioner was rightly not allowed to challenge the allotment on any other ground except Rule 22 as appeal was filed against the order of the Deputy Collector dated 27.07.1991 passed under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957. The order of allotment dated 18.07.1984 also attained finality for all other purposes except Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957. He has initiated wrong proceedings before the Collector in the year 1990 by filing the application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 which are not applicable as no allotment was made under the Rules of 1970 and further filed the application under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957, scope of which is limited. 18. Apart from above, the petitioner has neither challenged the basic order of reduction of the land by 2 bigha, 7 biswa by the Land Development Corporation by filing appeal under Section 40 of the Act of 1975 nor the Land Development Corporation and its functionaries have been impleaded as a party and further no proceedings have been initiated for decategorisation of the land from Siwai chak. In my view, the Board has rightly not invoked superintendence power under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the aforesaid grounds of challenge cannot be considered. 19. In my view, the Board has rightly not invoked superintendence power under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the aforesaid grounds of challenge cannot be considered. 19. I am of the view that the land was declared Siwai chak and the Respondent No. 5 applied for allotment of the land without making any incorrect statement of facts or wrong affidavit or document and allotted the land on 18.07.1984, against which original proceedings were initiated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957 before the Deputy Collector and the application was dismissed on 27.07.1991, against which the appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 27.09.1991 and revision before the Board of Revenue was dismissed on 111.1995. The original order dated 27.07.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector has not been specifically challenged. Therefore, the aforesaid Revenue authorities have rightly decided the scope of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957 and not adjudicated on other points raised during the course of arguments which were beyond the scope of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957. 20. I am of the further view that the other points which were beyond the scope of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957 and have not been adjudicated by the Revenue authorities cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned orders as there is neither any error apparent on the face of the record nor the impugned orders suffer from any error of jurisdiction nor the case of the petitioners is of violation of principles of natural justice in a proceeding initiated and arising out of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957. As regards exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am also of the view that all the Revenue Appellate Authorities have rightly exercised their jurisdiction and acted within the parameters while considering Rule 22 of the Rules of 1957. 21. In view of the above, the contentions of the petitioners have no force and the contentions of the respondents have force. 22. In the result, both the writ petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed.