Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 521 (RAJ)

Jagdish Singh v. Sanvarmal

2008-02-19

MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Board of the Revenue dated 8.8.2007. 2. Brief facts relevant to the present writ petition are that petitioner moved an application before the Additional Collector (II), Alwar to challenge the allotment of land made in favour of non-petitioner No. 1. It was contended therein that the allotment, so made, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1970'), was not proper, because the allotments were not made in accordance with Rule 13(3-A) and Rule 20 of the Wiles of 1970. Petitioner contended that as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1970, the allotment can be made only by the Committee as provided under the aforesaid Rules. However, in the present matter, In violation of Rule 13, a Committee was constituted and that made allotment in favour of the non-petitioner, more so, an application moved by the non-petitioner for regularisation of their possession of the land in dispute was rejected on the same day, i.e., 22.06.1992, but, thereafter, the Committee made recommendation of allotment of the land under the Rules of 1970 which was quite a contradictory action of the Committee. The main allegation of the petitioner therein was that as per Rule 13, Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or a Sarpanch are necessarily to be the member of the Committee, inasmuch as Section 13(3-A) provides that the quorum for constituting the meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from the Member of the Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch. However, in the present matter, none of them was member of the Advisory Committee and, therefore, without there being a proper constitution of the Advisory Committee, if allotment was made, then same was not sustainabl. The Additional Collector accepted the application of the petitioner and set aside the allotment order dated 22.06.1992. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, the non-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which, then, accepted the appeal of the non-petitioner and directed to maintain the allotment order. The Additional Collector accepted the application of the petitioner and set aside the allotment order dated 22.06.1992. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, the non-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which, then, accepted the appeal of the non-petitioner and directed to maintain the allotment order. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the appeal was accepted vide order dated 26.04.2005, wherein the Board of Revenue held that the allotments have been made in violation of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1970. The non-petitioner, thereafter, preferred a review petition before the Board of Revenue and vide the impugned order, the review petition of the non-petitioner was accepted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Board of Revenue in review petition contrary to the provisions of Rules, inasmuch as, the Board of Revenue, by referring to a Circular dated 14.05.1992, issued by the Revenue Department, accepted the review petition, though the said Circular, being contrary to the statutory provisions, should not have been looked into or relied for acceptance of review petition. It was, thus, prayed that the order of the Board of Revenue passed in the review petition deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the allotment of land in his favour was made in view of the recommendations of a Committee which was constituted pursuant to the Circular of the Government dated 14.05.1999. In the said Circular, it was provided that if due to the non-availability of Pradhan, Sarpanch, if Administrator is looking after the work, then, the Administrator can be the part of the Advisory Committee as per Rule 13 and any decision taken therein, would be proper as the Circular aforesaid permitted such a constitution. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the Board of Revenue has reviewed its order pursuant to the circular, then no interference is required to be made. 6. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the Board of Revenue has reviewed its order pursuant to the circular, then no interference is required to be made. 6. In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the non-petitioners had sought allotment due to their own influence as they were the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and their father also remained Sarpanch of the village for a quite long period, therefore, initially, using their influence, a land measuring 16 Bighas of Khasra No. 65 was got allotted, and, therefore, the impugned allotment order was also sought, that too in violation of the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1970. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 8. For the purpose of judging as to whether allotment of the land was made in accordance with Rules, 1970 or not, it is necessary to refer to Rule 13 and Rule 13(3-A) of the Rules which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "13. Allotment to be in consultation with Advisory Committee-(1) All allotment shall be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer in consultation with an Advisory Committee consisting of (i) the member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly in whose constituency the land is situated, (ii) the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction, (iii) the Sarpanch of the Panchayat having jurisdiction, (iv) the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction, (v) The Tehsiidar of the tehsil having jurisdiction, (vi) a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to be nominated by the Panchayat Samiti from amongst its members, and (vii) a person to be nominated by the State Government in areas in which such nomination is considered necessary in public interest. (3-A) The quorum for constituting the meeting of Advisory Committee shall be three members of whom one shall be from clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of sub-rule (1), provided that if a meeting of the Advisory Committee is adjourned for the want of quorum, the quorum for the adjourned meeting shall be two members of whom one shall be from clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of sub-rule (1)." 9. The perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals that all the allotments shall be made in consultation with the Advisory Committee and constitution of the said Committee shows that apart from Vikas Adhikari, Tehsildar, person belonging to SC/ST nominated by the Panchayat Samiti and a person nominated by the State Government, elected members like the Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan and Sarpanch are also the members of the Committee and as per Rule 13(3-A), quorum of the Advisory Committee should be at least of three members, out of whom one should be from and amongst mentioned in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13. In view of the aforesaid rule, it becomes clear that for completion of quorum, either the Member of the Legislative Assembly, or a Pradhan or a Sarpanch has to be in the Committee. However, in the present matter, it is an admitted fact that none of them were the members of the Committee, because the Committee was consisting of Tehsildar, Vikas Adhikari and the Administrator. The Board of Revenue has earlier accepted the appeal of the petitioner, after taking note of the rules. However, impugned order has been passed in review, mainly after relying the Circular dated 14.05.1992. Perusal of the Circular dated 14.05.1992 shows that in reference to Rule 13 of the Rules of 1970, Government issued an order to the effect that in those Gram Panchayat Samitis as well, the Administrators are working, there the constitution of the Advisory Committee under the rule should be considered to have been completed, if the Administrator is permitted to participate in the Committee. Minute examination of the circular shows that though the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat of the Panchayat Samiti is permitted to be part of the Advisory Committee, but, then, the circular further provides that with inclusion of the Administrator of Gram Panchayat, the membership i of the Advisory Committee becomes of four members, out of which, one of the member is the Member of the Legislative Assembly, but, then, taking note of certain contingencies of the absence of the Member of Legislative Assembly, it was given out that presence of three other members should be treated as completion of quorum. The aforesaid circular, if permitted to stand the constitution of the Advisory Committee is allowed to be made in absence of any of the members as provided under Rule 13(i),(ii) and (iii), then, it becomes contrary to the statutory provisions and, in fact, no statutory provisions can be supplemented by an administrative order or a circular and, if any such circular is issued, contrary to the statutory provisions, then, same cannot be looked into, because it is settled law that the administrative circular can supplement the statutory provisions, but cannot supplant the same. Perusal of the circular reveals that statutory provisions of Rule 13 are supplemented by the Government in illegal manner and the said circular dated 14.05.1992 cannot be looked into, particularly to statutory provisions, because as per Rule 13(3-A) of the Rules of 1970, when specific quorum is provided, then contrary to the said rule, no other quorum can be permitted by an administrative order. The Board of Revenue accepted the review petition, only after relying the circular dated 14.05.1992 which otherwise was not permissible. In fact, acceptance of allotment pursuant to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee not constituted as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1970 would mean perpetuation of illegality by Court of Law. Rule 13(1) or (3-A) nowhere provides that in absence of a Sarpanch or Pradhan, the Administrator could participate in the meeting or the Government can nominate or pass an order to the effect that in absence of a Sarpanch and Pradhan, Administrator can be a member of the Advisory Committee. In absence of any such provision, the circular issued by the Government cannot be looked into, more so, when Rules of 1970 does not provide any provisions to the effect that, in case of any difficulty regarding interpretation of rules, the Government can pass an appropriate order. Hence, taking note of the facts mentioned above, it cannot be said that the allotment made in favour of the non-petitioner was not made by a properly constituted committee. In view of the above conclusions, it is not required to look into other aspect of the matter, that is whether allotment was sought by the non-petitioner, being the Sarpanch or being the influential person. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 8.8.2007 is set aside. In view of the above conclusions, it is not required to look into other aspect of the matter, that is whether allotment was sought by the non-petitioner, being the Sarpanch or being the influential person. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 8.8.2007 is set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******