Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2714 (RAJ)

Sher Singh v. Sugan Singh

2006-09-11

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a revision petition under Rule 23(2) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar dated 12.12.2005 passed in appeal No. 95/2005. 2. Briefly, the facts of this case are hat around year 1961, 50 bighas land was allotted on temporary cultivation to petitioners grand father late Shri Chanan Singh S/o Shri Mehtab Singh. After chakbandi, out of 50 bighas land 24.10 bighas land of murba No. 228/435 was allotted to permanent basis to Shri Chanan Singh and remaining 25 bighas land of muraba No. 229/433 was declared as Government land. Out of this 25 bighas land of muraba No. 229/433, 10.14 bighas land was allotted to the respondent Sugan Singh and 10.16 bighas land was allotted to the respondent Sugan Singh and 10.16 bighas land was allotted of Chunni Lal. Petitioners father late Shri Tota Singh challenged the order of allotment in two appeals bearing No. 600/85 and 601/85 before Addl. Commissioner Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. This matter was remanded with the direction that in view of the general direction of the Government of Rajasthan, the application of Shri Tota Singh may be kept pending and alternative land may be considered for allotment to Sugan Singh and Chunni Lal. The claim of Shri Tota Singh was that he should be allotted the land because he was the adult son of Shri Chanan Singh who was that T.C. holder of the dispute land. this matter continued in further litigation and the last result in this matter is the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar dated 12.12.2005 passed in appeal No. 95/05. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar by his order dated 12.12.05 found that two adult sons of late Tota Singh had already been allotted 25 bighas each in the mean time; hence, both are not eligible for further allotment and the claim of Sher Singh S/o Tota Singh had already been fulfilled. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority by his order dated 12.12.2005 decided that the land allotted to respondent Shri Sugan Singh and Chunni Lal is upheld and possession may be given to them as possession could not be given due to continued litigation between the parties. 3. Aggrieved against the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, this is a revision petition. 4. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority by his order dated 12.12.2005 decided that the land allotted to respondent Shri Sugan Singh and Chunni Lal is upheld and possession may be given to them as possession could not be given due to continued litigation between the parties. 3. Aggrieved against the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, this is a revision petition. 4. Arguing in support of the revision petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner, is that Shri Chanan Singh was the T.C. holder of 50 bighas land comprising of muraba No. 229/433 and 228/435; hence, Shri Chanan Singh was entitled to allotment for the muraba numbers of land measuring 50 bighas. He has supported his view by any authority of Honble Supreme Court as reported in RRD 1993 page 596. He also argued that above view has been followed by the Honble High Court as per RRD 1997 page 09 and argued that declaration of surplus land as Government land was made to the respondents was improper. It was also argued that daughters of T.C. holder Shri Chanan Singh had equal rights to claim the allotment as per the decision of Honble Supreme Court as reported in RRD 1989 page 435. He was also argued that the order passed in two appeals No. 600/85 and 601/85 by Addl. Commissioner Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner had become final and there was no scope for learned Addl. Collector to debar the petitioner from the allotment by order dated 5.8.2005 and the order of learned Revenue Appellate authority dated 12.12.05 also could not have been passed in above two appeals, in view of the appeals decided earlier by learned Revenue Appellate Authority. As such both the impugned orders of learned Addl. Collector, Sriganganagar and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar are illegal and improper and should be quashed. He also prayed to remand this matter to the allotting authority with the directions to allot the land in question measuring 25 bighas of muraba No. 229/433 of chak No. 3 R.B.M. to the legal representation of late Shri Tota Singh who was the applicant for the disputed land. He prayed for setting aside both the impugned order. 5. He also prayed to remand this matter to the allotting authority with the directions to allot the land in question measuring 25 bighas of muraba No. 229/433 of chak No. 3 R.B.M. to the legal representation of late Shri Tota Singh who was the applicant for the disputed land. He prayed for setting aside both the impugned order. 5. Replying to the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the contention f learned advocate on behalf of non-petitioner is that petitioners Sher Singh has concealed very important facts of this case in the revision petition. He has concealed the fact that the allotment of disputed land to Shri Chanan Singh was canceled by Asstt. Commissioner Colonisation, Gharsana on 23.1.79, saying that Chanan Singh never gave any application and the allotment made without an application and without possession, could not be made of the disputed land. As such the disputed land was never surplus and of T.C. holder Chanan Singh and it was Government land. The petitioners have concealed the important decision of learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 15.4.2002 by which the order passed in appeal No. 600/85 and 601/85 could not become final. Land allotted to Sugan Singh and Chunni Lal are both Government lands and successors of Tota singh can have no claim on that land. The orders in appeal No. 600/85 and 601/85 never became final because in these both appeals, matter was remanded to learned Addl. Collector who passed an order on 13.10.98 and against that order appeal was again made to learned Revenue Appellate Authority who decided the matter of 15.4.2002 in appeal 396/98. As such this matter never attained finality and by the impugned two orders of learned Addl. Collector and learned Revenue Appellate Authority have rejected the claim of the petitioners. He also argued that learned Revenue Appellate Authority in the impugned order has discussed in detail that the two petitioners-applicants who applied for allotment have been allotted 25 bighas land each. Tota Singh S/o Chanan Singh has been allotted 25 bighas in chak No. 3 R.B.M. muraba No. 229/433 and Jalwant Singh S/o Chanan Singh has been allotted 25 bighas in chak 6-A. As such the two applicants cannot claim allotment of the disputed surplus land because they have already been allotted sufficient land as mentioned above. He also argued that learned Addl. He also argued that learned Addl. Collector heard the parties in detail and he made a proper order. Learned Addl. Collector found that the T.C. allotment of Chanan Singh was canceled as having been made illegally as such land which was allotted illegally cannot be treated as surplus land. Chunni Lal and Sugan Singh both belong to "vUr;ksn;" Family and they deserve priority. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority has also discussed the matter as length and found that there is no case of the petitioners. Both the orders are legal, within jurisdiction, logically concluded, just and proper and need no inference at the stage of revision. He also argued that the petitioners are trespassers and deserve no sympathy. 6. Having heard the parties and having perused the record and having respectfully perused the authorities referred in this case, I come to the following conclusions:- (1) That having respectfully perused the authorities of Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court it is clear that they are not applicable in this case because as per the finding of the lower courts, the disputed land is not surplus land of the T.C. holder, as the temporary allotment was canceled. As such disputed land is not a surplus land as claimed. (2) Shri Chanan Singh had already been allotted 24.10 bighas of muraba No. 228/435 of which he was the T.C. holder. Land of muraba No. 229/433 was not the surplus land of Chanan Singh because the T.C. allotment had already been canceled in the year 1979 and the land was recorded as government land. As such Chanan Singh or his adult sons can have no claim over the disputed land. (3) Impugned order of learned Addl. Collector and Revenue Appellate Authority are concurrent on the finding of the facts and there is no reason for interference at our level in this matter. There is no error of jurisdiction and no grounds on the basis of legality or property which can warrant interference by this bench. (4) On the ground of equity, the petitioners have no claim because both the applicants Tota Singh and Jalwant Singh, sons of Chanan Singh had already been allotted 25 bighas of land each and in that situation they cannot supersede the priority of other deserving claimants. (4) On the ground of equity, the petitioners have no claim because both the applicants Tota Singh and Jalwant Singh, sons of Chanan Singh had already been allotted 25 bighas of land each and in that situation they cannot supersede the priority of other deserving claimants. Sufficient land has been allotted to two petitioners as mentioned above and it has no where been mentioned that any application of the other petitioners was pending during the period when the disputed land was allotted to the non-petitioners No.1 and 2. In that situation there is no case of the petitioners for any justified claim against non-petitioners No.1 and 2. (5) The claim of the petitioners indicates greed and it is not a matter of need. As such there are no grounds for interference at this level. (6) Trespassers have to be discouraged so that law abiding poor citizens can get their due share in the welfare activities of the State. (7). In view of the conclusions above this revision petition is rejected. Pronounced.