Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1028 (RAJ)

Jailal v. Board of Revenue

2008-04-15

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Under challenge in this writ petition is the judgment of the Board of revenue dated 7.8.2000 whereby the appeal of the private respondents was allowed and the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 24.1.1997 was reversed. The Revenue Appellate Authority by that judgment had set aside the order dated 18.3.1994 passed by Additional District Collector, Shahbad, District Baran accepting the application of the private respondents under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Land Allotment Rules, 1970. 3. Shri Amit Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Additional District Collector had wrongly decided the matter against the petitioners cancelling the allotment made in their favour vide order dated 19.10.1977. The Board has proceeded on the assumption that allotment was made in favour of the petitioner by SDO, Shahbad whereas the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has in his order found that as on 19.10.1977, the post of SDO had not even been created at Shahbad. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the patta in fact was issued by Additional District Collector, Shahbad and therefore the Additional District Collector and the Board of Revenue have misread and misconstrued the documents and have wrongly directed for cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner. It was argued that if the respondents had made efforts to trace the record from the correct office, the relevant papers would have been discovered. There was absolutely no basis for the Additional District Collector to hold that the petitioner procured the allotment letter in question by exercising fraud. Learned counsel argued that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was justified in reversing judgment of the Additional District Magistrate who found that photocopy of patta issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was on record and mutation pursuant to such patta had already been attested in his favour. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority rightly held that the respondents could not prove any better entitlement to claim regularisation of the land in dispute in their favour. Learned counsel argued that even otherwise when the petitioner is in possession of the said land from the date of allotment made in 1977, he should not be dispossessed from such land and the Board ought to have declined to interfere in the matter. Learned counsel argued that even otherwise when the petitioner is in possession of the said land from the date of allotment made in 1977, he should not be dispossessed from such land and the Board ought to have declined to interfere in the matter. Learned counsel cited the judgments in Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue & Ors.- AIR 1994 SC 1128 , Naga Ram & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors.- 2001 (2) WLC(Raj.) 148 , State of Raj. v. Mahesha & Ors.-2001(1) 432 and Mangal Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.-2007 RRD 423 . Learned counsel also argued that the appeal at the instance of the private respondents could not be entertained by the Board of Revenue because they merely had the right to file application under Section 14(2) and it was thereafter for the Government whether or not to pursue the matter any further. 4. Shri Harshvardhan Nandwana, learned Govt. Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the learned Additional District Collector and the Board of Revenue have rightly held that the allotment letter was procured by the petitioner by exercising fraud and even otherwise, possession of the petitioner has not been found proved because findings of possession of the private respondents has been given by the Additional District Collector and the Board of Revenue. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the learned Additional District Collector in his order has categorically recorded the finding that the possession of the private respondents on disputed property as trespassers was proved from perusal of khasra girdawari of Smt. 2020-2035. It was found that apart from the non availability of record and the relevant file which could prove the genuineness of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, there could be no question of regularisation of possession of the petitioner when for the corresponding period possession of the respondents was found on record. If the petitioner wanted to prove that the allotment letter was issued to him from the office of Additional District Collector, Shahbad, therefore, it was for him to produce the relevant records of the proceedings either of that office or of Allotment Advisory Committee. Nothing of this sort was however done. If the petitioner wanted to prove that the allotment letter was issued to him from the office of Additional District Collector, Shahbad, therefore, it was for him to produce the relevant records of the proceedings either of that office or of Allotment Advisory Committee. Nothing of this sort was however done. In the face of it, the findings recorded of the Court below cannot be upset on the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner. The Revenue Appellate Authority while reversing the judgment of the Additional District Magistrate has not recorded satisfactory findings. It has proceeded merely on the fact that photocopy of the patta was available on record of the file of the court below, but the Board of Revenue in its order has found that till date, the petitioner was not able to produce the original of the patta. On consideration of totality of circumstances, therefore, the ratio of judgment of Brij Lal, supra and other judgments of this Court decided on that basis, cannot be applied to this case. 6. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******