Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 675 (RAJ)

LRs. of Sarjit Singh v. Board of Revenue

2006-02-27

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-A 50 bighas of irrigated land situated in Chak No. 6 N.P.D. was alloted to Smt. Gurudayal Kaur w/o Shri Kartar Singh under the orders of Dy. Colonisation Commissioner (RCP) in accordance with Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1975"). The allotment of land was made in favour of Smt. Gurudayal Kaur by treating her a bona fide agriculturist having lease for temporary cultivation. The order making allotment in favour of Smt. Gurudayal Kaur was suo moto reviewed by the Dy. Colonisation Commissioner (RCP) and after hearing the parties interested by an order dated 111.1973 it was held that the allotment of the land referred above was made in contravention to the Rules of 1975. Accordingly the allotment so made was cancelled. 2.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Dy. Colonisation Commissioner (RCP), the petitioner son of Smt. Gurudayal Kaur, preferred an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, which stood decided on 18.07.1977. The Revenue Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the allotting authority to consider the matter afresh as per Rules of 1975. 3.The Dy. Colonisation Commissioner, Vijay Nagar by his order dated 11.08.1982 after hearing the parties, decided the matter again and declared that Smt. Gurudayal Kaur was not eligible for allotment under the Rules of 1975. An appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the order dated 11.08.1992 passed by the Dy. Colonisation Commissioner, Vijay Nagar too was rejected by the Additional Commissioner cum Revenue Appellate Authority (RCP) by the Judgment dated 23.01.1984. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Rule 23 (2) of the Rules of 1975 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, that too stood rejected by Judgment dated 20.07.1994. A review petition preferred to review the Judgment dated 20.07.1994 was also rejected by the Board of Revenue by its Judgment dated 24.08.1994. Hence, the instant petition for writ is preferred. A review petition preferred to review the Judgment dated 20.07.1994 was also rejected by the Board of Revenue by its Judgment dated 24.08.1994. Hence, the instant petition for writ is preferred. 4.The petitioner before the Board of Revenue contended that Smt. Gurudayal Kaur being having a valid lease for temporary cultivating, was rightly allotted with land by order dated 31.03.1972 and she was having long possession over the land, therefore, in view of dictum of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128 , was not required to be dis-possessed. The Board of Revenue while rejecting the revision petition held that the lease granted for temporary cultivation to the petitioner, was forged and, therefore, on basis of that no order for allotment of land could have been passed. The Board of Revenue also held that the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Brij Lals case (Supra) could have been applied only in the event of having a valid lease for temporary cultivation and not in the cases where the lease for temporary cultivation, is found forged. 5.While giving challenge to the Judgment dated 20.07.1994, it is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority and the allotting authority failed to appreciate that the lease for temporary cultivation, was granted to the petitioner pursuant to an order dated 20.11.1964 and that lease was not at all forged one. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the allotment was made in favour of Smt. Gurudayal Kaur by the order dated 31.03.1972 on basis of temporary cultivation lease referred above, which was never cancelled and was never found forged. It is further contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having possession over the land in question more than a period of six decades and as such his dis-possession at this stage, shall be nothing but travesty of justice. It is further contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having possession over the land in question more than a period of six decades and as such his dis-possession at this stage, shall be nothing but travesty of justice. 6.Per contra, it is contended by Counsel for the respondent-State that the lease for temporary cultivation was granted to the father of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 20.11.1964 and that was only to maintain his possession on the land as a dispute with regard to validity of Section 15-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, was then pending before this Court, The validity of provisions of Section 15-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was affirmed and, therefore, the temporary cultivation lease (Annexure-2) became non-consequential. It is further contended by Counsel for the respondents that the possession over the land by the petitioner is a consequent to an order which was obtained by the petitioner by placing a forged lease for temporary cultivation, as such the petitioner is to be considered as a trespasser. 7.Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 8.The allotment of land measuring 50 bighas was made to the petitioner by an order 31.03.1972 passed by the allotting authority. The allotment was made pursuant to lease for temporary cultivation already having in favour of the petitioner pursuant to an order dated 211.1964. A copy of the order dated 211.1964 is placed on record by Counsel for the petitioner as Annexure-9. From reading of the order dated 211.1964, it appears that Shri Kartar Singh husband of Smt. Gurudayal Kaur was having possession over the land in question and he was at that time having a lease for temporary cultivation, but that was found forged. The competent authority while declaring the temporary cultivation deed in favour of Kartar Singh forged, allowed him to retain possession of the land in question as a dispute with regard to validity of provisions of Section 15-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was under consideration. Pursuant to the order dated 211.1964, a fresh lease for temporary cultivation was issued in favour of Kartar Singh, on basis of this newly issued lease for temporary cultivation, the order of allotment dated 31.03.1972 was passed. In view of it, it can safely be said that the order dated 31.03.1972 was not issued by placing foundation on any temporary cultivation lease said to be forged. In view of it, it can safely be said that the order dated 31.03.1972 was not issued by placing foundation on any temporary cultivation lease said to be forged. It is not in dispute that the lease for temporary cultivation which is placed on record as Annexure-2 was never found forged and was also never cancelled. The Board of Revenue, Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the allotting authority failed to consider this aspect of the matter. The lease for temporary cultivation which is placed on record as Annexure-2 was issued pursuant to the order dated 20.11.1964, as such it shall be erroneous to say that the order for allotment of land for permanent cultivation was based on a forged document. I am of the considered opinion that the finding in this regard given by the Courts below is erroneous. 9.I am also of the view that the petitioner is having cultivatory possession over the land from last more than 60 years and, therefore, his dis-possession at this stage shall be arbitrary. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal (Supra) protected such old possession. The Board of Revenue while rejecting the revision petition held that the Brij Lals case (Supra) was pertaining to a valid lease for temporary cultivation and not for the lease obtained fraudulently. From reading of the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Brij Lals case (Supra), it is apparent that the Honble Supreme Court allowed to retain possession on the land only on the count that it was in cultivatory possession for a period of more than 30 years. It is nowhere stated in the Judgment that lease granted was pertaining to only those persons, who were having a valid temporary cultivatory possession. Be that as it may. 10.In the present case also, as I have already held that the petitioner was having a valid lease for temporary cultivation and, therefore, he was erroneously ordered to be dis-possessed from the land by setting aside the order of allotment dated 31.03.1972. 11.In view of whatever discussed above, the petition for writ succeeds and, therefore, the same is allowed. The Judgment impugned passed by Board of Revenue in Revision Petition No, 74/Colonisation/84/SGNR dated 20.07.1994. Sarjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan is quashed. The order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RCP), Bikaner dated 23.04.1994 and the order passed by the Dy. 11.In view of whatever discussed above, the petition for writ succeeds and, therefore, the same is allowed. The Judgment impugned passed by Board of Revenue in Revision Petition No, 74/Colonisation/84/SGNR dated 20.07.1994. Sarjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan is quashed. The order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RCP), Bikaner dated 23.04.1994 and the order passed by the Dy. Colonisation Commissioner, Vijay Nagar dated 23.04.1994 are also quashed. 12.No order as to costs.