Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2227 (RAJ)

Dala Ram v. State of Raj.

2006-07-14

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble, ARVIND, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 25.3.2003 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali in review petition No. 12/2002. 2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the Halka Patwari reported to Naib Tehsildar, Sirohi that the petitioner has made a subsequent trespass on 4 bighas land of khasra No. 899 of village Padiv. Learned Naib Tehsildar, Sirohi had sentenced one month civil imprisonment on 19.9.2001 to the petitioner. Against this sentence the petitioner submitted an appeal before learned Additional District Collector, Sirohi, who by his order dated 28.1.2002 rejected the appeal of the present petitioner. Aggrieved against this judgment, the petitioner submitted a second appeal before learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi, who by his judgment dated 19.3.2002 rejected the second appeal. Against this judgment, the petitioner submitted a review petition before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali, who also rejected the review petition on 25.3.2003. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.3.2003, this is a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. 3. Arguing in support of the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that learned Naib Tehsildar took no independent evidence regarding the encroachment and did not give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to backward community and is a villager and he was asked to sign on the paper which he could not understand, as such his presence is meaningless and he could not explain his case properly. He was ordered to go under prison for one month and was also asked to pay fine. He also argued that learned Additional Collector did not go into the merits of the case and rejected the appeal in a summary manner. Similarly learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi also did not properly consider the genuine issues raised by the petitioner. A review application was also made to the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali because the jurisdiction changed but he ignored the rightful claim of the petitioner in the review petition also. Aggrieved against the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali dated 25.3.2003 this is a revision petition and there are grounds which demand consideration of the case of the petitioner sympathetically. The trespass needs to be regularised and all the four impugned orders of the lower courts be set aside. 4. Aggrieved against the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali dated 25.3.2003 this is a revision petition and there are grounds which demand consideration of the case of the petitioner sympathetically. The trespass needs to be regularised and all the four impugned orders of the lower courts be set aside. 4. Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the revision is not maintainable because revision has been presented against the review petition whereas original order upholding the order of learned Additional Collector and Naib Tehsildar was passed by learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi dated 19.3.2002 by which the order of Naib Tehsildar was upheld. He also argued that a case of encroachment was registered against the petitioner and he could not produce any evidence which could justify the possession of the petitioner on the land and he also refused to vacate the possession. His encroachment was removed earlier also and he made a subsequent encroachment on the government land and the learned Naib Tehsildar had no option but to order for ejectment and civil imprisonment. He also argued that the petitioner was present before the learned Naib Tehsildar and he has himself put his thumb impression on the proceedings which proves his presence. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity of producing any evidence. As such in such a situation when he himself is not utilising opportunity of production of evidence it proves that he has no justification or proper evidence in his favour and his possession is illegal and this trespass needs to be removed and the impugned orders need no interference at this stage and he deserves no concessions. He is also not prepared to vacate the possession made through encroachment. 5. Having heard both the counsels, having seen the record, I find that thisis a case in which the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence or any justification of remaining in possession of the disputed government land. He has been given opportunity by the learned Naib Tehsildar, Learned Additional Collector, learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali but he has failed to put forth any argument which could prove the justification of his remaining in possession. Even before this Court, he has failed to produce any justification for his continuance in possession. He has been given opportunity by the learned Naib Tehsildar, Learned Additional Collector, learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali but he has failed to put forth any argument which could prove the justification of his remaining in possession. Even before this Court, he has failed to produce any justification for his continuance in possession. He has not even in his pleading realized his mistake and he does not want to relinquish the possession and wants to continue with the encroachment. He is claiming for regularisation but in his petition there is nothing which can justify the claim of his continuance of the possession as a trespasser. This Court could take a lenient view but the petitioner has not given any affidavit or any statement which can prove that he has vacated the possession. He wants to continue his encroachment under the garb of keeping the matter pending that is why he has been going into appeals, review and revision but nowhere he has been able to justify that his possession bears some legal sanction. He has been given opportunity by the learned Naib Tehsildar, by the learned Additional Collector and by the learned Revenue Appellate twice but he has failed to prove that his possession is justified or is covered under any rule for regularisation. Even in the revision before us there is not even a single justification which can help him in continuance of possession and it has been clearly proved that he is encroaching again and again on the government land without any lawful basis. He only wants to get the benefit of technical issues and there is no substance for justification of his encroachment. 6. In these circumstances it is not possible to permit him to perpetuate the encroachment. The petitioner has not even realised his mistake and he is not even prepared to vacate the possession made through encroachment. In such a situation mere ground of demanding sympathy without any proper justification can have no force and this Bench is rightfully prevented from taking any sympathetic view. The orders of learned Naib Tehsildar, Sirohi dated 19.9.2001, learned Additional Distt. Collector, Sirohi dated 28.1.2002, learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi dated 19.3.2002 and Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali dated 25.3.2003 have been logically concluded and enough opportunities have been given to the petitioner to present his case. The orders of learned Naib Tehsildar, Sirohi dated 19.9.2001, learned Additional Distt. Collector, Sirohi dated 28.1.2002, learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi dated 19.3.2002 and Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali dated 25.3.2003 have been logically concluded and enough opportunities have been given to the petitioner to present his case. We have also heard the petitioner and now there is no force in the claim that opportunity of hearing has not been given. All the orders of courts below have been properly and logically concluded and proper opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and there are no grounds either on legality or on propriety which can ask this Bench to accept this revision. There are no grounds which can ask me at this fourth stage to interfere in the decision of lower Courts which are all concurrent. 7. In view of the conclusions above, it is difficult to accept any demand of regularisation and it is difficult to accept the prayer for sympathetic consideration and this Bench cannot encourage the perpetuation of encroachment on government land without any proper claim or justification and as such there is no option but to uphold the orders of learned Naib Tehsildar, Sirohi dated 19.9.2001, learned Additional Distt. Collector, Sirohi dated 28.1.2002, learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi dated 19.3.2002 and Revenue Appellate Authority Pali dated 25.3.2003 and there is no option but to reject the revision petition. 8. As such this revision petition is rejected and the orders passed by the Court below are upheld. 9. Pronounced.