Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 157 (RAJ)

Pyare Lal v. Rajaram

2008-01-18

G.K.TIWARI

body2008
Honble , M.—The above two appeals being of the similar nature filed by the same appellants pertaining to the same original land holding (Khasra No. 1310) are clubbed together for final disposal through a common judgment. 2. These are appeals under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") against the impugned common judgment dated 13.3.2003 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur in appeal No. 144/2002 and 160/2002. 3. Briefly stated facts are that respondents Rajaram and Babu Lal were allotted 0.50 hectare of land each in Khasra No. 1310 situated in village Mendi of Tehsil Gangapurcity, Distirct Sawai Madhopur on 16.5.1989 by the land allotment committee. Thereafter possession of the allotted land was given to the allottees Rajaram and Babu Lal respectively by the concerned revenue officials. Pattas of the allotted land were also issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gangapurcity. Aggrieved against these two allotment orders, appellants approached District Collector, Sawai Madhopur under rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1970), whereupon Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur vide his common decision dated 3.7.2002 cancelled the allotments of both the respondents-allottees. Aggrieved against the impugned decision dated 3.7.2002, the respondents - allottees filed appeals before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur, who by his common decision dated 3.3.2003 allowed the appeals, quashed the order of Additional Collector dated 3.7.2002 and upheld the allotments of respondents. Hence the instant appeals against the impugned decision of Revenue Appellate , Authority dated 13.3.2003. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsels for the appellants and respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the respondents Raja Ram and Babu Lal were wrongfully allotted 0.50 hectare of land each in khasra No. 1310 on ]6.5.89. Ever since the allotments, respondents have never been in possession of the allotted land, which is in possession of the appellants who being members of the scheduled tribe should have been allotted the impugned land on priority basis. But the allotment committee did not consider the applications of the appellants for allotment of the disputed land and without giving any reason rejected the applications of the appellants and. allotted the disputed land to the respondents. But the allotment committee did not consider the applications of the appellants for allotment of the disputed land and without giving any reason rejected the applications of the appellants and. allotted the disputed land to the respondents. It was necessary for the allottees to cultivate atleast 50% of the land in the first year of the allotment according to Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1970 but this condition of and as such Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur rightly cancelled the impugned allotments of the year 1989 vide his judgment dated 3.7.2002. Appellants being the members of scheduled tribe should have been given priority in allotment. It was further argued that the appellants were earlier in the year 1983 allotted 0.50 hectare of land in the same khasra No. 1310 which is a large chunk of land. The disputed allotted land is adjoining the earlier allotted land of the appellants, who being landless agriculturists should have been allotted the land given to respondents. There is site inspection report of Inspector Land Records (fxjnkoj) which shows that the. appellants are in possession of the disputed land. There is also dispute with regard to the demarcation of the allotted land and its consequent alternation (rjehe) of the map. Learned counsel for the appellants cited 2002 RRD 1 to state that allotment procured through misrepresentation and fraud should be cancelled. It was also argued that khatedari right of the allottee can be extinguished under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955"). Since the land has been in possession of the appellants, it was not available for the allotment and as such should not have been allotted. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority has overlooked all these facts and position of law and erred in quashing the decision of Additional Collector dated 3.7.2002 and upholding the allotments. As such the decision of Revenue Appellate Authority should be quashed. 6. Strongly contesting the contentions of learned advocate for the appellants, learned advocate for the respondents argued that both the respondents are lawful allottees of the disputed land. The land allotment committee allotted to both the respondents 0.50 hectare of land each in khasra No. 1310 on 16.5.S9. Thereafter possession of the allotted land was handed over to the respondents-aJlottees on 5.6.1989 by 16 the concerned Patwari in presence of two witnesses. The land allotment committee allotted to both the respondents 0.50 hectare of land each in khasra No. 1310 on 16.5.S9. Thereafter possession of the allotted land was handed over to the respondents-aJlottees on 5.6.1989 by 16 the concerned Patwari in presence of two witnesses. Pataas of the allotted land were also issued to the respondents- allottees, Raja Ram and Babu La!. The appellants have no locus standi to raise issue of allotment before the Court, as they were never allotted the land under consideration. There is no proof that they were allotted the disputed land in 1983, presuming for the sake of argument that the appellants are in possession of the government land, still such government land is available for the allotment because trespass on government land does not make the land occupied under the Act of 1955 and Rules of 1970. According to 2001(1) RRT (H.C.) page 195 a trespasser has no vested right to pray for regularisation. According to 2002 RL W (2) page 1000 the impugned allotment cannot be used as a means to make good deficit of land upto upper limit of possession by a person seeking allotment. Both the allotments were made 18 years back. By now respondents have acquired khatedari rights in this allotted land. Learned advocate for the respondents cited 1988 RRD 689,1987 RRD 371 and 235, 2003 RRD 237, 1997 RRD 195, 2001 RRD 126 and 206 and 1998 RRD 128 and argued that after acquisition of khatedari rights on expiry of 10 years after allotment, the allotment cannot be cancelled. It would amount to travesty of justice if a lawful allottee, who was lawfully given possession is dispossessed after 18 years. Impugned judgment of learned Additional Collector dated 3.7.2002 is illegal as it seeks to extinguish khatedari right of a recorded khatedar, which is not possible under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. According to 1995 RBJ 780, khatedari rights can be withdrawn only in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1955. Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 is applicable only before confirming of khatedari rights. A lawful allottee cannot be dispossessed after 10 years of allotment when khatedari rights have accrued; he can only be ejected as per provision of the Act of 1955, as held in 2006 RBJ 11. Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 is applicable only before confirming of khatedari rights. A lawful allottee cannot be dispossessed after 10 years of allotment when khatedari rights have accrued; he can only be ejected as per provision of the Act of 1955, as held in 2006 RBJ 11. The impugned order of Additional Collector is not only beyond jurisdiction being against a khatedar tenant, it is also a non-speaking order. Additional Collector has not specifically stated what condition of allotment was not fulfilled, nor has he examined the fact whether the application of allotment was ever made by the appellants and if so why was it not considered by the allotment committee. The respondents are bonafide landless agriculturists and land allotment committee rightly allotted land after considering all the terms of eligibility. These allotments made 18 years back cannot be interfered with by Additional Collector, and his impugned decision was justly quashed by Revenue Appellate Authority. There is no reason to interfere in the decision dated 13.3.2003 of Revenue Appellate Authority in the second appeal. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and carefully perused the impugned decisions of both the lower Courts and gone through the available revenue records in the file. 8. It is undisputed fact that the respondents Raja Ram and Babu Lal were allotted 0.50 hectare of agricultural land each in khasra No. 1310 on 16.5.89 by the land allotment committee. Thereafter possession of the allotted land was duly handed over to both the respondents by the concerned Patwari in presence of two witnesses. This fact is verified by Inspector Land Records, as is obvious from the written report of .handing over of the possession of the allotted land. Subsequently Sub Divisional Officer, Gangapurcity issued pattas to both the respondents-allottees. The respondents-allottees have also acquired khatedari rights in the allotted land by now. The contention of appellants is that the disputed land is in their possession; admittedly this possession is unauthorised -- rather trespass. Plea of the appellants is that earlier in the year 1983 appellants were also allotted 0.50 hectare of land in the same khasra No. 1310 which is a large area. Now they are further making claim on the land of both the allottees on the ground of having encroachment on the land. Plea of the appellants is that earlier in the year 1983 appellants were also allotted 0.50 hectare of land in the same khasra No. 1310 which is a large area. Now they are further making claim on the land of both the allottees on the ground of having encroachment on the land. This is brazen and blatant assertion of claim on trespassed land which was allotted 18 years back to landless bonafide agriculturists by the competent land allotment committee. The appellants have admitted that they were earlier allotted 0.50 hectare in the same khasra number. But their greed has not stopped and they have set eyes on the land of allottees also. Honble High Court of Rajasthan has clearly held in 2001(1) RRT 195 that the trespassers cannot have any right to secure regularisation of their wrongful act of encroachment. Even if it presumed that respondents have made applications for allotments of the disputed land, the land allotment committee in its discretion had decided on 16.5.89 to allot the land under consideration to the respondents, who are also bonafide landless agriculturists qualified for allotments under the Allotment Rules of 1970. The appellants have not proved that the respondents-allottees are not eligible for allotments under the Allotment Rules of 1970. The plea of appellants that possession was never given to respondents-allottees is not tenable in view of the fact that the concerned revenue functionaries handed over the possession in presence of two witnesses, of which record is available on the file. Not only this, pattas have also been issued to the allottees and now allotted land stands in the khatedari right of the respondents-allottees. 9. A perusal of the decision of Additional Collector dated 3.7.2002 shows that allotments of 16.5.1989 was cancelled on 3.7.2002 mainly on the ground that allotment conditions were not fulfilled; but it is not stated as to which of the allotment condition was violated. Thus, this is a vague order. Another reason given is that signatures/ thumb impression of the respondents do not tally, which raises suspicion. This finding is also untenable in view of the fact that entire proceedings of allotment took place before the land allotment committee and thereafter the possession was handed over by the revenue officials in presence of witnesses. Thus, this is a vague order. Another reason given is that signatures/ thumb impression of the respondents do not tally, which raises suspicion. This finding is also untenable in view of the fact that entire proceedings of allotment took place before the land allotment committee and thereafter the possession was handed over by the revenue officials in presence of witnesses. There could have been ground of suspicion if original allottees were changed or their names were changed but this is not so; hence there is no ground for the suspicion of the impugned allotments to the respondents-allottees. It is also surprising that allotment of 1989 was cancelled after 13 years when the allottees had already acquired khatedari rights. According to 2006 RBJ 11, after 10 years of allotment allottees can be ejected only under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and not under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. This is further upheld in 1997 RRD 195, 1999 RRD 128,2001 RRD 126 and 206, 2003 RRD 237. 10. The appellants have tried to make out their case on the basis of the possession on the disputed land. Assuming that the appellants are in possession of the disputed land, still it would only be a possession of rank trespasser. Such land under encroachment is still available for allotment, as it does not become occupied land within the definition of Section 5(27) of the Act of 1955. Hence, such land is available for allotment as unoccupied land, as held by Honble High Court in 2000(2) RL W 1000. 11. It is significant to observe that respondents-allottees have become khatedars of the land which was allotted to them in the year 1989. Once khatedari rights have accrued to them it (khatedari) can only be withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1955 and not under rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules of ] 970, as has been held in 1995 RBJ 780 by Honble High Court of Rajasthan. It is further held in 1988 RRD 689 and 1987 RRD 371 that there cannot be cancellation of allotment order once khatedari rights are conferred on the allottees. It is further held in 1988 RRD 689 and 1987 RRD 371 that there cannot be cancellation of allotment order once khatedari rights are conferred on the allottees. Honble High Court of Rajasthan has clearly spelt out in 2001(1) RRT 29 that allotment made for agricultural purposes cannot be cancelled after a prolong period, as it will be travesty of justice to dispossess the allottees from such land which was taken care of and nourished by them for such a long period. 12. . Learned counsel for the appellants have cited 2002 RRD 1 in support of the contention that even allotment of very long period can be cancelled under rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 but this ruling is applicable only in case of allotment procured through fraud or misrepresentation, as in the above cited case a person who had 43 bighas 5 biswas of land and who was not a landless person managed to procure allotment through fraud and misrepresentation of facts. But the instant case is not of such nature. It has not been proved that the respondents-allottees are not bonafide landless agriculturists or they have secured allotments through fraud or misrepresentation. 13. Since the alleged possession of the appellants on the disputed land is that of rank trespassers it would be unlawful to give protection to the possession of an illegal act which is void in origin. Giving such protection to trespasse-6would put premium on lawlessness and provide impetus to the law-breakers for grabbing government land. I am ful1ified in holding this view by pronouncement of Honble High Com1 of Rajasthan in 2001(1) RRT 195. 14. In light of the above analysis, I see no reason to interfere in the decision dated 13.3.2002 of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur. 15. In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly. Pronounced.