Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1313 (RAJ)

Ram Kumar v. Board of Revenue

2008-05-09

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble PANWAR, J.—By the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of orders Annex.5 dated 29.6.2007, Annex.6 dated 23.8.2007 and Annex.8 dated 25.3.2008 passed by respondents No.1,2 and 3 respectively. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondents No.4 and 5 filed an application for allotment of small patch of land on 14.2.2007 before the Tehsildar (Revenue) Loonkaransar who sent the application to the respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer, Loonkaransar. The respondent No.3 by order dated 29.6.2007 Annex.5 allotted the small patch of land. The order allotting the small patch of land came to be challenged by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 by way of an appeal, however, the appeal filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 23.8.2007. That order came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of a revision before the respondent No.1 which came to be dismissed by order Annex.8 dated 25.3.2008. Hence this petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders impugned and other documents annexed with the writ petition. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents No.4 and 5 in whose favour the respondent No.3 made allotment of small patch of land, are not having agriculture field adjacent to that of the small patch of land. He has placed on record site map Annex.1 in which the small patch of land has been marked as “x” place and adjacent Murabba to the small patch of land are Murabba No.231/26 & 231/27 and 231/34, Killa Nos. 19, 18, 23 adjacent to small patch of land are of Murabba No.231/26 and Killa Nos. 3, 8, 12 and 13 adjacent to small patch of land are of Murabba No.231/27, whereas the land of the respondents No.4 and 5 is bearing Killa Nos. 16,17,18 & 19 of Murabba No. 231/27 and as such the small patch of land is not adjacent to that of agriculture field of the respondents No.4 and 5. 3, 8, 12 and 13 adjacent to small patch of land are of Murabba No.231/27, whereas the land of the respondents No.4 and 5 is bearing Killa Nos. 16,17,18 & 19 of Murabba No. 231/27 and as such the small patch of land is not adjacent to that of agriculture field of the respondents No.4 and 5. It is further contended that there are as many as five agriculturists having adjoining land to that of small patch of land who are petitioners herein, whereas the alleged notice was sent to only Mooli Devi petitioner No.2 herein and the notice too has not been served on petitioner No.2, but it were the respondents No.4 and 5 who got forged thumb impression impressed on the notice and that is how in collision with the authority with the forged thumb impression on the notice, the notice alleged to have been served on the petitioner No.2 Mooli Devi and they got the land allotted by order Annex.5 dated 29.6.2007. The respondent No.2 Sub-Divisional Officer mentioned in the order that the notice to neighbouring agriculturists having field adjacent to that of small patch of land i.e. Mooli Devi has been served and despite service of notice she failed to appear. Whereas, in fact no such notice was ever served on the petitioner and when the petitioner came to know of forging of summon/ notice, filed a criminal complaint before the competent Court which was sent to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and after thorough investigation, the police prima-facie found that signature/ thumb impression on the summon issued to the petitioner No.2 Mooli Devi was forged and it was used as forged document and therefore, the police filed a challan against the respondents No.4 and 5 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The trial of the criminal case is pending before the trial court i.e. Judicial Magistrate Court. Learned Counsel has placed on record the copies of the challan papers filed against respondent No.4 and 5 vide Annex.7. The trial of the criminal case is pending before the trial court i.e. Judicial Magistrate Court. Learned Counsel has placed on record the copies of the challan papers filed against respondent No.4 and 5 vide Annex.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the courts below failed to take into consideration that there had not been a service of notice on the agriculturists having adjacent field to that of small patch of land and there was a fictitious service on the petitioner as the thumb impressions were found to be forged and therefore, none of the petitioners who were having adjacent land to that of small patch of land have been given notice by the respondent No.3 before allotting the small patch of land to respondents No.4 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of this Court in Smt. Sunder vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. 2005(7) RDD 2599 . 5. Counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5 supported the orders impugned and contended that the courts below did not find favour with the petitioners and therefore, call for no interference. 6. The procedure has been prescribed for allotment of small patch of land under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules of 1975' hereinafter). Rule 14 (1) of the Rules of 1975 provides that Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these rules, small patch of Government land may be allotted, to a tenure tenant whose tenure land adjoins such patch, subject to the ceiling area at half of the index price or double the reserve price, whichever is higher provided that if the tenant of the adjoining land fails to apply for the allotment of small patch, the allotting authority shall make arrangement for making allotment of such small patch to the tenure tenant of the same chak or of the adjoining chak. 7. In Smt. Sunder vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. (supra) this Court held that even if a person is eligible for allotment of small patch, it could be allotted to him only when lying adjacent to his existing holding. 7. In Smt. Sunder vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. (supra) this Court held that even if a person is eligible for allotment of small patch, it could be allotted to him only when lying adjacent to his existing holding. It has been further observed that obviously, when the small patch of land itself could be upto 5 bighas of irrigated land and 10 bighas of unirrigated land, the same is normally not available for independent allotment and would serve the purpose only of the adjoining tenants and as the adjoining tenants could be calling to the different class or category of persons as provided in other provisions in the Rules and could be having with them different areas already available under allotment, hence to make the Rule workable and to achieve its object, it was required that it be made overriding anything to the contrary contained in the Rules so that no doubt or confusion remains about the persons who are eligible to obtain allotment of small patch, i.e. they must only be the adjoining tenure tenants irrespective of their class or priority or category or extent of holding. On these premises, the order setting aside the allotment of small patch by Board of Revenue was found to be just and proper and this Court held that no error was committed by the Board of Revenue in finding that the allotment to the petitioner therein was in contravention of the Rules and requisite procedure was not followed. In that case, the Board of Revenue set aside the order of allotment of patch of land in contravention of the Rules and directed reallotment after following the necessary procedure as provided in the Rules. 8. In my view, the controversy raised in the instant writ petition stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Smt. Sunder vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. (supra) and therefore, in my considered opinion the respondents fell in error in not examining the matter in the light of procure prescribed under the Rules, more particularly Rule 14 of the Rules of 1975 and the fact that the allotment has been got in favour of the respondents No.4 and 5 by forging notice, using it as genuine and therefore, such an allotment order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annex.5 dated 29.6.2007, order Annex.6 dated 23.8.2007 and order Annex.8 dated 25.3.2008 passed by the respondents No.1 to 3 are set aside and quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer, Loonkaransar to decide the question of allotment of patch of land afresh in accordance with law after serving notice to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.