Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 129 (RAJ)

Balkishan Paliwal v. State

2006-01-12

BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Revenue Minister dated 012.1996 (Annexure-4) regularizing the possession of the applicants Respondents No. 4 to 26 herein, over the lands in question under Rule 20 read with Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970. The petitioner also seeks direction to the Collector, Jodhpur not to give effect to the said order of the Minister. 2. Facts of the case are that a Co-operative Society, by name, Bithari Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited was formed in the year 1959. On 25.07.1960, 500 bighas of land was allotted to it in terms of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land to Co-operative Societies) Rules, 1959 for 25 years. On 21.02.1995 order of liquidation of the society was passed in terms of Section 78 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 by the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur on the ground that 16 out of 24 members had their own lands and, therefore, they were not eligible for allotment of the lands, 5 members were residing outside the area of operation of the Society and 6 out of 12 new members were not landless. The Dy. Registrar appointed one Bhupendra Kumar Sharma, Co-operative Inspector as Liquidator. Some of the members of the Society preferred appeal to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which was dismissed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) on 30.05.1997. Meanwhile, on 11.08.1995 Collector, Jodhpur had directed the Tehsildar, Phalodi to take possession of the lands in question treating them as a state land (Sawaichak) in terms of Rule 5(4) of the Land Revenue (Allotment of Land to Co-operative Societies) Rules, which provides for resumption of the land by the Collector without payment of compensation if (a) the land is not brought in the cultivation strictly in accordance with Sub-rule (3) or (b) it is not properly utilized or (c) it is sub-let or transferred in any other manner or (d) the co-operative society fails or goes into liquidation. Against the said order of the Collector, the respondents moved the Minister Revenue under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955. Against the said order of the Collector, the respondents moved the Minister Revenue under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955. On consideration of their case, the Minister found that each of them was a landless person within the meaning of rules; that they were in continuous possession of the land since 1960; and that they were being treated as unauthorized occupants of the land only because of cancellation of the allotment to the Society as a result of liquidation of the Society. In these circumstances, relaxing the Government Order contained in 6(7) Revenue-4/77/6 Revenue-6/12 dated 01.04.1991 read with 6(7) Revenue-4/77/8 dated 012.1991 and exercising the powers under Rule 20 read with Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes), Rules, 1970, he directed that their possession be regularized. 3. Shri M. Mridul, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.S. Chundavat appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allotment was made without giving notice to the members of the public. The respondents are not landless person and they were not in possession of the lands in their individual capacity. It was the Society which was in possession to which land had been allotted. Counsel also questioned the competence of the Minister. He submitted appeal under Section 83 of the Land Revenue his only against an administrative order. 4. The respondents in their reply have questioned the locus standi of the petitioner and it has been stated that the petitioner is a resident of village Mokheri which is 17 Kms. away from village Bithari and, therefore, he cannot claim any right or interest in the land and cannot challenge the order of regularization in favour of the respondents. 5. We find force in the stand of the respondents. We are of the view that not being resident of Bithari where the lands in question are situated, the petitioner cannot claim any right and even if they were to be allotted or settled after public notice, he could not have staked claim for allotment. As regards the status of the respondnets, the Minister individually considered the claim of each respondent and found that they were landless within the meaning of Allotment Rules. 6. As regards the status of the respondnets, the Minister individually considered the claim of each respondent and found that they were landless within the meaning of Allotment Rules. 6. In Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1128 the allotment of land in favour of the appellant under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 was cancelled on the ground that the appellant had secured allotment by giving false declaration of his age. The Supreme Court firstly held that the ground i.e., age of the appellant was not proved, and then observed-regard being had to the long possession of the appellant, as under:- “It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating possession of the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades.” 7. In the instant case, on the date of regularization/allotment, the respondents were in possession of the land for 37 years; as of now, they are in possession for 45 years. May be that the land was allotted to a co-operative society but the respondents were the beneficiaries of allotment and, therefore, even if there was any flaw in the order, it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb their possession at this stage. As a matter of fact, we do not find any flaw in the order. The order of the Collector dated 11.08.1995 was administrative in nature and amenable to revision under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act. 8. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.