Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1393 (RAJ)

Murali v. Addl. Collector, Nagaur

2006-04-27

R.P.VYAS, RAJESH BALIA

body2006
Honble BALIA, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These two appeals arise out of common order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.10.2001. The appeal filed in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3954/2001 was allowed by a separate order in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 523/2002 Narsingh Ram vs. Additional Collector & Ors., on two grounds, firstly, that the order of the Collector setting aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner after lapse of almost 20 years was not justified for some procedural irregularities only. The other ground was about the grievance of the complainant before the Collector, who have claimed the land in question to be actually their own land and about title of which, the Court has observed that so far declaration of title of the complainant is concerned, it was not within the domain of the Collector to entertain such complaint as the issue has to be decided by the Civil Court to settle question of title between two competing claims of private person. 3. The justification in the facts of these two appeals pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents is that in these cases the complainant do not claim any personal interest except as a member of public that the land in question was a public land however, the collector has not found in its decision that it was a public land and not available for allotment. 4. In fact, the Collector has proceeded on identical grounds while deciding the two complaints lodged by the respondents Ram Ratan and Liccha Ram that allotment was made in the year 1981 in favour of the present appellant-petitioner which was not valid. So far as merit of the case is concerned, there is no difference in the cases with the case of Narsingh Ram. In fact, learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that the orders passed in present case by the Collector is almost in identical terms as was in the case of Narsingh Ram. So much so that the Collector has even referred to the case of complainant as claiming title in land, as in the case of Narsingh Ram while according to learned Counsel for the respondents, the complainants in the present case have not claimed personal title in land in question. No material has been placed on record to find this distinction. So much so that the Collector has even referred to the case of complainant as claiming title in land, as in the case of Narsingh Ram while according to learned Counsel for the respondents, the complainants in the present case have not claimed personal title in land in question. No material has been placed on record to find this distinction. If the contention of the Counsel for the respondents is accepted, the impugned order of Collector on the face of it suffers from the vice or complete non-application of mind. It has noticed that complainants claim that land in question is their ancestral land. Whereas according, to learned Counsel for the respondents it was not so. Other term of the order is identical as was made in Narsingh Rams case. This clearly indicates that learned Collector has dealt with the order made in Narsingh Rams case without applying mind to facts of present case. If the reference to complainants case by Collector in his case is taken to be correct, no distinction can be made in the case of Narsingh Ram and these two appellants. 5. Therefore, we see no reason for taking a different view than what we have taken in Narsingh Rams case. 6. In fact, the Collector has noticed in his order the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that land in question was really allotted to them in the year 1991 and they have raised construction thereon and no other land is allotted to the petitioner-appellant. However, learned Counsel for the respondents states that this was in fact the case of the complainant before the Additional Collector that land belongs to them and it is not correct statement of fact that no contention was raised before him in this regard. If that be so, it becomes relevant whether the Collector has applied his mind on the facts of the complaint. All these facts were considered in Narsingh Rams case holding that difference exists in the order passed by the Collector. Learned Counsels own contention that the order of the Collector is embellished with consideration of wrong facts which are not relevant for consideration. All these facts were considered in Narsingh Rams case holding that difference exists in the order passed by the Collector. Learned Counsels own contention that the order of the Collector is embellished with consideration of wrong facts which are not relevant for consideration. Similarly, learned Single Judge also did not refer to ally distinction between three cases and has merely referred to the facts stated in Narsingh Rams case, obviously for the reason that the Collector has also proceeded on the assumption that land in question is claimed by the respondents, as their own. 7. Be that as it may, if the statement and contention raised before the Collectoiare taken to be correct statement that there is no distinction between Narsingh Rains case and these cases then the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the order of the Collector is visited by irrelevant consideration is liable to be accepted. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents fired that in addition to the aforesaid submissions since Rain Rattii (Respondent No. 2) had died during tile peiidency of the appeal and his legal representatives are riot on record, the appeal against him is abated and consequently, the order will not be carried out against him and the appeal must be dismissed as abated. 9. We are unable to sustain this contention. Though, legal representatives of deceased Ram Ratan have not been brought on record, the fact remains that Ram Ratan and Lichha Ram both are sons of Pabudan and happens to be real brother and they have filed a joint complaint. The complainant was as a member of public having no personal interest. In other words, it was a representative-complaint. Thus in fact, appellant-petitioner has filed appeal against Ram Ratan and Lichha Ram, who were purportedly pursuing a public cause as resident of village in general. Since, Lichha Ram is already there to prosecute the appeal and no order for or against is to be passed against Ram Ratan, the principle of abatement does not apply in case of deceased Ram Ratan. 10. No other points have been raised in this case. 11. In view of the above, the case is fully covered by the decision in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 523/2002 Narsingh vs. Additional Collector, Nagalir & Ors., consequently, these appeals are also allowed. Judgment under appeal is set-aside. 10. No other points have been raised in this case. 11. In view of the above, the case is fully covered by the decision in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 523/2002 Narsingh vs. Additional Collector, Nagalir & Ors., consequently, these appeals are also allowed. Judgment under appeal is set-aside. The order passed by the Collector cancelling allotment of the land is quashed. 12. No costs.