Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 821 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Singh

2008-03-17

MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, NARAYAN ROY

body2008
Hon'ble ROY, C.J.—By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.3.1997, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed. 2. The facts relevant to the case are that vide order dated 26.6.1986, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) allotted Khasra No. 359 to non-appellant Shiv Singh. The said allotment was made as per the provisions of Uncultivable Waste Land for Development of Private Forest Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986'). The allotment so made was challenged by the Sarpanch before the Collector under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1986. The Collector passed an order of cancellation of allotment dated 26.10.1987. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner-non-appellant before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority restored the allotment vide his order dated 7.9.1988. The State went in appeal before the Board of Revenue, who then by the impugned order set aside the allotment and maintained the order of the Collector. Aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, petitioner-non-appellant preferred writ petition before this Court which was then allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that land of Khasra No. 359 was allotted in violation of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1986. The quorum of the Advisory Committee as provided under Rule 12 of the Rules, 1986 was not complete yet S.D.O. made allotment thus allotment has rightly been cancelled by the Collector under the proceedings initiated u/Rule 18 of the Rules of 1986. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing writ petition, came to the conclusion that so far as the quorum as provided under Rule 12 is concerned, it was complete as merely for the reason that the Sarpanch, after remaining present in the meeting of the advisory committee, refused to sign the proceeding, cannot be said that the quorum as required under Rule 12 of the Rules was not complete. A detailed reasoning has been given by the learned Single Judge for reversing the judgment of the Board of Revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the non-appellant submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is based on reasonings and thus same should be interfered in appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the non-appellant submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is based on reasonings and thus same should be interfered in appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. The only issue for our consideration is as to whether the allotment made in favour of non-appellant Shiv Singh was illegal for want of quorum of the advisory committee as provided under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1986. Perusal of rule 12(1) shows that there are various members of the advisory committee, out of which three members are public representatives that is MLA, Pradhan and the Sarpanch. Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 provides that if member of the advisory committee failed to attend the meeting, the SDO shall carry out the proceeding for allotment in consultation with other members of the advisory committee, not being less than two members in number and out of them, one should be public representative. Thus, a look at Rule 12 demonstrates that quorum as required under the proviso is of two members and out of which, one should be a public representative. In the present matter, Pradhan as well as Sarpanch were present in the meeting of the advisory committee and refusal to sign the proceedings by the Sarpanch does not mean his absence. Thus, requirement of quorum of two members is fulfilled and out of these two members, one was public representative rather Sarpanch and Pradhan both were public representatives. Thus, the requirement of the proviso to complete the quorum is fulfilled herein. In view of the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the allotment made in favour of non-appellant Shiv Singh was in violation of the Rule 12 of the Rules, 1986. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, thus the appeal so preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge is dismissed with no order as to casts.