Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 534 (RAJ)

Ram Pratap v. State of Raj.

2006-02-15

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Honble MATHUR, J.—A murabba of land was allotted to one Sh. Kalyan Singh (Petitioner No. 8 now dead) at Beed Gogamedi for self cultivation under an order dated 24.5.1955 passed by the Director, Department of Colonization, Hanumangarh. The land was allotted to aforesaid Sh. Kalyan Singh as he submitted an application for that by claiming himself an Ex Jagirdar of Village Bagoli, Raghunath Pura and Bhojgarh. The Collector, Sriganganagar granted Khatedari rights to Sh. Kalyan Singh by issuing Sanad dated 9.12.1977 and also granted permission to sell land in dispute in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. Sh. Kalyan Singh thereafter by four different sale deeds sold the land in dispute to the Petitioners No. 1 to 7 in the month of June 1981. The Petitioners No. 1 to 7 since then are having cultivatory possession over the land in dispute. (2). The Commissioner Khudkasht under a notice dated 12.6.1985 initiated proceedings to review the allotment of land made in favour of Sh. Kalyan Singh under the order dated 24.5.1955. The Commissioner Khudkasht sought review of that Kalyan Singh secured allotment through fraud and misrepresentation to the extent that he was neither a Jagirdar/Sub Jagirdar nor he was a landless agriculturist. A reply to the notice issued by the Commissioner Khudkasht was field by Sh. Kalyan Singh, however, the Commissioner Khudkasht by the order impugned dated 1.4.1992 reviewed the order of allotment and cancelled the allotment of land made in favour of Kalyan Singh under the order dated 24.5.1955. A challenge to the order dated 12.6.1992 reviewed the order of allotment and cancelled the allotment of land made in favour of Kalyan Singh under the order dated 24.5.1955. A challenge to the order dated 12.6.1985 is given by the petitioners on the count that the Khudkasht Commissioner was lacking jurisdiction to review the order dated 24.5.1955 as under Section 40-A, of the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1952) an order making allotment can be reviewed within a period of three months from the date of order. In alternative it is also urged that the Commissioner Khudkasht exercised powers under Section 40-A of the Act of 1952 at quite a belated stage and, therefore, the action taken after an inordinate delay of about thirty-five years is unjust and arbitrary. In alternative it is also urged that the Commissioner Khudkasht exercised powers under Section 40-A of the Act of 1952 at quite a belated stage and, therefore, the action taken after an inordinate delay of about thirty-five years is unjust and arbitrary. Counsel for the petitioner has also emphasized that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 are bona fide purchasers and they purchased the land Kalyan Singh in the year 1981 i.e., quite earlier to initiation of proceedings under Section 40-A of the Act of 1952, therefore, for any act of Kalyan Singh they could not be punished. (3). A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents in general defending the order passed by the Commissioner Khudkasht. (4). Heard Counsel fro the parties. (5). The first contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner Khudkasht was lacking jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 40-A, of the Act of 1952 as those proceedings could have been initiated only within a period of three months from the date of order or from 18.1.1958. (6). Section 40-A of the Act of 1952 empowers the Board of Revenue, Jagir Commissioner or the Commissioner of Khudkasht land to review an order passed by the Board or by Jagir Commissioner or by Khudkasht Commissioner on an application within a period of three months of 18.1.1958 or from the date of such an order to review the same. Section 40-A, also empowers the authorities referred above to review an order suo moto too. The limitation of three months prescribed under Section 40-A pertains to initiation of review proceedings on an application, however, no such limitation is prescribed for initiating review proceedings and to review an order suo moto. In view of it, I do not find any force in the contention of Counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner Khudkasht was lacking jurisdiction to proceed under Section 40-A of the Act of 1952 after the lapse of three months from 18.1.1958 or from the date of the order sought to be reviewed. (7). The next contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the land was allotted to Sh. Kalyan Singh in the year 1955, the Khatedari rights were also granted to him to the year 1977 and the permission was also granted by the Collector, Sriganganagar to sell the land in dispute in year 1981. Sh. (7). The next contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the land was allotted to Sh. Kalyan Singh in the year 1955, the Khatedari rights were also granted to him to the year 1977 and the permission was also granted by the Collector, Sriganganagar to sell the land in dispute in year 1981. Sh. Kalyan Singh after obtaining permission sold the land in the year 1981 and as such the initiation of review proceedings in the year 1985 i.e., after a lapse of thirty years was unjust and arbitrary. According to the Counsel for the petitioner the Petitioners No. 1 to 7 are in cultivatory possession of the land and have incurred substantial expenditure in cultivating and developing the land. It is empathetically stated that the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of Kalyan Singh by the order impugned is arbitrary as it will uproot the petitioners who are bonafide agriculturist by profession. It is admitted position that the land in dispute was allotted to Sh. Kalyan Singh in the year 1955 and the Khatedari rights were granted in the year 1977 and he was also permitted to sell the land in accordance with Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 by the Collector Sriganganagar. Sh. Kalyan Singh sold the land to the Petitioner No. 1 to 7 by registered sale deeds in the month of June 1981. The Petitioners No. 1 to 7 are having cultivatory possession over the land in question since then. The petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land and in the event the order impugned be permitted to be sustained then it shall not be having any effect on Sh. Kalyan Singh who sold the land to the Petitioners No. 1 to 7 and he is not giving to suffer any loss now due to any act of fraud or misrepresentation committed by him in getting the land allotted. There are the Petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 only who will face all the adverse consequences. The Commissioner Khudkasht initiated proceedings under Section 40-A, of the Act of 1952 at a very belated stage. The petitioners who are bonafide purchasers of the land shall unnecessarily be uprooted from the land in question due to inaction on the part of the Commissioner, Khudkasht. 1 to 7 only who will face all the adverse consequences. The Commissioner Khudkasht initiated proceedings under Section 40-A, of the Act of 1952 at a very belated stage. The petitioners who are bonafide purchasers of the land shall unnecessarily be uprooted from the land in question due to inaction on the part of the Commissioner, Khudkasht. It is well settled that an authority vested with powers to initiate the proceedings which may effect rights of any party adversely should take such action within a reasonable time and without any inordinate delay. In the instant matter as the proceedings under Section 40-A were initiated after a lapse of 30 years, therefore, the same is not only having arbitrary nature but is also an exercise of powers in colourable manner. (8). In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above this petition for writ deserves acceptance, therefore, the impugned order dated 1.4.1992 (Annexure-9) is quashed. (9). No order as to cost.