Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 801 (RAJ)

Sohan Singh v. Board of Revenue

2006-03-08

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By instant petition for writ a challenge is given to the Judgment dated 20.09.1994 passed by Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner affirming the order dated 211.1990 passed by Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner. 2. The facts in brief are that the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat by his order dated 14.03.1990 while accepting an application under Rule 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1975”), ordered for special allotment of land in favour of petitioner in Chak 27 DOBB, Murrabba No. 195/47 and 195/137, Kolayat. The Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner on inquiry found that the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 14.03.1990 allotted land to the petitioner in violation of provisions of Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975. The Commissioner, Colonisation accordingly cancelled the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner exercising powers under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1975. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred a revision petition before Board of Revenue which came to be rejected by the Judgment impugned. 3. While giving challenge to the Judgment dated 20.09.1994 it is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue failed to appreciate the fact that the Commissioner, Colonisation cancelled the allotment of land without appreciating the correct application of Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that there was no need of notifying the land for public auction as the other applicants viz. Bhagwan Singh, Sohan Singh and Mahaveer Singh withdrew their applications for allotment of the same land and the petitioner was the only aspirant to get the land allotted. 4. Heard Counsel for the parties. 5. The Board of Revenue considered the entire matter in detail and reached at the conclusion that a device was adopted by the petitioner to avoid sale of the land by auction. The Board of Revenue after considering all facts of the case held that violation of Rules of 1975 is writ large in allotment of land to the petitioner. The relevant portion of the discussion made by Board of Revenue in this regard reads as under:- 6. The Board of Revenue after considering all facts of the case held that violation of Rules of 1975 is writ large in allotment of land to the petitioner. The relevant portion of the discussion made by Board of Revenue in this regard reads as under:- 6. The finding given by the Board of Revenue is based on sound appreciation of facts available on record and such a finding if not perverse or beyond the jurisdiction vested with the Court below cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The violation of provisions of Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 is apparent. In fact the petitioner adopted a device to frustrate the provisions of Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 for getting the allotment of land in his favour. In view of it I do not find any error in the Judgment passed by Board of Revenue and also in the order passed by Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner cancelling allotment of land in favour of the petitioner. No interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, therefore, is warranted. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.