Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 434 (RAJ)

Umed Singh v. The Khudkast Commissioner

2006-02-08

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner a Jagirdar, on resumption of Jagir, applied for allotment of Khudkast land before the Commissioner of Khudkast under Section 14, of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952. The Khudkast Commissioner vide its order dated 20.08.1956 allotted 83 acres of land of Khudkast to the petitioner. The petitioner after passing the order dated 20.08.1956 by the Khudkast Commissioner press hard for getting the land allotted in his favour for more than about 32 years. Ultimately, the land was allotted out of Khasra No. 62 measuring 74 Bigha 18 Biswa Banjar and Khasra No. 62 measuring 18 Bigha 9 Biswa in total 93 Bigha 7 Biswa situated in village Malpura Doonger, Tehsil Jaipur. 2. Pursuant to the allotment order dated 07.06.1989, the Tehsildar directed the concerned Patwari to handover the physical possession of the aforesaid land. The possession was handed over to the petitioner and mutation was also opened in favour of the petitioner on 15.06.1989 and in Jamabandi, the petitioner was also recorded as Khatedar. 3. One Gopi S/o Shri Laduram filed an appeal before the Khudkast Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.04.1990. Thereafter, Gopi and Ramchandra also filed a revision petition before the Khudkast Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.06.1990. 4. Again the Respondent No. 4, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jaipur on 04.01.1990 as the Respondent No. 4, also applied for allotment of land before the Revenue Minister on 30.03.1987 out of the land allotted in favour of the petitioner. The Revenue Minister vide order dated 07.06.1989 allotted 5 acres of land to the Respondent No. 4 out of the land allotted to the petitioner. The Khudkast Commissioner vide its Judgment dated 24.06.1992 modified the order dated 07.06.1989 to the extent of allotment of 5 acres of land to the Respondent No. 4. 5. Aggrieving and dissatisfying with the Judgment dated 24.06.1992, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the ground that land once allotted in favour of Jagirdar cannot be allotted to any other person. 5. Aggrieving and dissatisfying with the Judgment dated 24.06.1992, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the ground that land once allotted in favour of Jagirdar cannot be allotted to any other person. Furthermore, after lapse of long spell of time, the Respondent No. 4, has no locus to file the appeal before the Khudkast Commissioner and Khudkast Commissioner is having no jurisdiction to curtail the land out of the land allotted in favour of the petitioner and allot the same to the Respondent No. 4. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court in case of Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer vs. Rao Baldev Singh reported in AIR 1968 SC 898 . Learned Counsel further referred the Judgment dated 24/09/1970, passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 40/68 titled as Purohit Swaroop Narain vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 7. After referring the aforesaid Judgment s, learned Counsel submits that the order of the Khudkast Commissioner dated 28.08.1956 was revised by the Collector (Jagir) vide order dated 07.06.1989 after lapse of 30 years thereby reducing the allotment of 83 acres land to 93 Bigha 7 Biswa is without jurisdiction of the Collector and per se illegal. The petitioner is entitled to be allotted 83 acres of land as sanctioned vide order dated 28.08.1956. The Khudkast Commissioner has no power or authority to amend his own Judgment dated 20.08.1956 by another order dated 24.06.1992 thereby passing the order of allotment of 5 acres of land of the petitioner of Shri Ayurved and Unani Aushodies Medicines. Thus, the order dated 24.06.1992 is void ab initio as it was initially intimated to the petitioner or the Government had no right to reclined that order except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. It is not disputed that pursuant to the order passed by the Khuskast Commissioner dated 28.08.1956, instead of 83 acres of land 93 Bigha 7 Biswa land has been allotted to the petitioner and out of which further the Khudkast Commissioner allotted 5 acres of land equivalent to 8 Bigha to the Respondent No. 4. 9. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully perused the impugned order dated 24.06.1992. 10. 9. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully perused the impugned order dated 24.06.1992. 10. Upon perusal of the order, it appears that the Khudkast Commissioner has not rightly appreciated the facts of the case and provisions of the Jagir Act, 1952. The order passed by the Khudkast Commissioner is contrary to the provisions of the Section 39, (1-A ). It appears that on the recommendation of the Revenue Minister, allotment is made in favour of the Respondent No. 4. Even otherwise, the Respondent No. 4 is eligible to get the land allotted in his favour. The land should be allotted to him out of the land free from all encumbrances. The Khudkast Commissioner has no legal right to allot the land to the Respondent No. 4 out of the land which is allotted in favour of the petitioner. 10.11. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the Khudkast Commissioner is without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.06.1992 passed by the Khudkast Commissioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The possession of the land in question is with the petitioner as the order dated 24.06.1992 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 29.07.1992 and the same be not disturbed by the respondents. The Khudkast Commissioner is directed to consider the application of the Respondent No. 4 for allotment of land in his favour out of the Sivai Chak and the land free from all encumbrances. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed.