Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1313 (RAJ)

Ramdev v. Badri

2007-07-14

A.C.SHARMA

body2007
Honble SHARMA, M.—This appeal listed for admission has been filed under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk dated 31.5.2006 (Appeal No. 58/2002). 2. The brief facts of this case are as under:– The appellants have stated that the respondents No.1, 3 & 4 to 6 were allotted Government land measuring 0.31 hectare of Khasra No. 120, 1.35 hectare of khasra No. 134, 0.03 hectare of khasra No. 135 and 0.15 hectare of khasra No. 136 by the respondent No. 2 Additional Collector (Rehabilitation & Land Acquisition Officer), Bisalpur Project, Tehsil Devli, District Tonk. The appellants being aggrieved by the above allotment order, preferred an appeal before the R.A.A., Tonk and the same was rejected by the appellant authority on 31.5.2006. This second appeal has been preferred before this Bench of the Board on the grounds that the appellate Court has passed the order ex parte against the appellants. Thus, the order passed by the appellate Court, without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the appellants, deserves to be set aside. The appellants have alleged that the subordinate appellate Court has not looked into the matter seriously to appreciate the facts and the evidences available on the record. The appellants are landless persons and are in continuous possession of the land under dispute since Svt. 2012 as is evident from Khasra Parivartansheel. Thus, in the above circumstances, the appellants were eligible for regularization of the disputed land. By not appreciating the above facts, appellate Court has erred in deciding the case against the appellants. It has been further alleged by the appellants that the Allotting Authority before making allotment in favour of the respondents, neither ejected the appellants and dispossessed them nor the prescribed procedure was followed before making formal allotment in favour of the respondents. It has been prayed by the appellants that since they are in possession of the land since long times, they are eligible for regularization of the disputed land. 3. It has been prayed by the appellants that since they are in possession of the land since long times, they are eligible for regularization of the disputed land. 3. The learned advocate of the appellants has argued the case at length and tried his best to convince the Court that the allotment made by he Allotting Authority has been made beyond the scope of rules & regulations; while on the other hand, the appellants, being in possession since long of the disputed land, should have been given an opportunity by the competent authority to get the land regularised as per provisions of the law. 4. Stay application has also filed along with the appeal by the appellants requesting that the impugned order passed in the appellate authority dated 31.5.2006 be stayed. The caveat by the learned advocate for the respondents has also been filed along with the reply of the stay application, hence the learned advocate for the caveator was heard. The caveator learned advocate for the respondents argued the case at length at and mentioned assertively that this is not a fit case for admission and prima facie; having no ground whatsoever, is not maintainable. He argued that the allotment made by the appellate authority has been made as per procedure of law. Not only that, even the allottees have deposited all the dues and the price for the said land as per provisions of the Allotment Rules. It has been explicitly made clear that after the allotment order passed in favour of the respondents, the mutation of the disputed land has been effected in their favour and their names appeared in the record of rights in consequence thereof. The caveator learned advocate for the respondents further argued that since ever step in consequence of the allotment has been taken by the respective authorities and it has been well established and the appellants are nothing more than the trespassers on the Government land for which the procedure of ejectment has also been followed. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels of both the parties and perused the record. In consequence of the allotment order dated 4.2.2002, the possession of the said land has been handed over to the respondents on 29.5.2002 Mutation No. 156 dated 21.6.2002 and mutation No. 157 dated 28.6.2002 have also been effected in favour of the non-petitioner-respondents. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels of both the parties and perused the record. In consequence of the allotment order dated 4.2.2002, the possession of the said land has been handed over to the respondents on 29.5.2002 Mutation No. 156 dated 21.6.2002 and mutation No. 157 dated 28.6.2002 have also been effected in favour of the non-petitioner-respondents. The certified copies of the allotment letter and the mutations effected have also been filed with the record. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioners-appellants preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk and the same has been rejected by the appellate authority vide its order dated 31.5.2006. It is clear from the record that the appellate authority has also rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation, treating it time barred, as well as on merits. The appellants have also taken stand that the Addl. Collector, Tonk vide his decision dated 3.11.2001 has also recommended to consider the matter for regularization of the disputed land in favour of the appellants. This is very strange that the appellants claiming the above order to be in their favour, have not approached to any competent authority for getting the above land regularized. There is no evidence on record that any proceedings for regularization of the said land in favour of the appellants has been ever initiated. In the light of the above facts, I have come to the conclusion that there is no ground in this case to withstand any proof or evidence in favour of the appellants to admit for hearing and the decision. The appellate Court has dealt the case at length as is clear from its decision dated 31.5.2006. Since the appeal of the case at length as is clear from its decision dated 31.5.2006. Since the appeal of the appellants in the lower Court has been rejected on limitation being time barred as well as on merits, there seems to be no locus standi of the appellants to file this second appeal against the impugned order dated 31.5.2006. The findings of the lower Courts are concurrently against the appellants. The scope of the second appeal is always very limited so as to examine whether the subordinate Courts have erred in their decisions or had any lapses for appreciating the facts on record. The findings of the lower Courts are concurrently against the appellants. The scope of the second appeal is always very limited so as to examine whether the subordinate Courts have erred in their decisions or had any lapses for appreciating the facts on record. Since there is no substance in this appeal and I do not find it to be a fit case for further hearing, the same is rejected at the stage of admission. Pronounced in open Court.