Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1241 (RAJ)

Jagannath v. Board of Revenue

2009-05-05

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.12.1993 passed by the Deputy District Collector, Kota, whereby the learned Deputy District Collector has amended the order dated 2.5.1992 also passed by the previous Deputy District Collector Kota. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 1.3.1994 passed by the Additional District Collector (Ceiling) Kota whereby the learned Additional District Collector has upheld the order dated 16.12.1993. Lastly, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.8.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short) whereby the Board has upheld the order dt. 16.12.93 and the order dt. 1.3.1994. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that ceiling proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. Vide order dated 23.4.1976, it was held that 200 bighas and 18 biswas of land which belong to the petitioners were in excess of the prescribed ceiling limit. Therefore, the land was acquired on the basis of the option given by the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an against the said order before the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA', for short). However, vide order dated 23.4.1976, the RAA dismissed the said appeal. Meanwhile the land which was acquired was allotted to different persons, namely respondent Nos. 5 to 10. The allotment was not only confirmed, but respondents Nos. 5 to 10 were also granted the 'Ghair Khatedari' rights. On the other hand, since the petitioners were aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.1976, they filed an appeal before the Board. Treating the appeal as a revision, the Board rejected the said revision vide its order dated 14.5.1979. Thereafter, challenging the order dated 14.5.1979, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court. Vide judgment dated 3.1.1991, this Court accepted the writ petition and remanded the case back to the Board. Vide order dated 30.1.1992, the Board again decided the case and held that only 47.84 standard acres of land was in excess of ceiling limit. Since the petitioners were entitled to be restored the part of the land which was earlier acquired, the petitioners filed an application under Section 144 of C.P.C. before the SDM, Kota. Vide order dated 2.5.1992, the SDM directed that the petitioners were entitled to 50 bighas and 4 biswas of land to be restored back to them. Since respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.1992, they filed an appeal before the RAA. Vide order dated 2.5.1992, the SDM directed that the petitioners were entitled to 50 bighas and 4 biswas of land to be restored back to them. Since respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.1992, they filed an appeal before the RAA. However, vide order dated 17.9.1992, the RAA dismissed their appeal. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 5 to 10 filed an appeal before the Board. But vide order dated 17.9.1992, the Board also dismissed their appeal. The Board was of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to restitution of their land. 3. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10, thereafter, moved in application before the Deputy District Collector praying for amendment in the order dated 2.5.1992. Vide order dated 16.12.1993, the said application was accepted. The learned Deputy District Collector held that while the petitioners were entitled to restitution of land in Khasra Nos. 90, 123, 124 and on the southern part of Khasra No. 117, the petitioners were not entitled to the land which was on the northern part of Khasra No. 117. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.1993, they filed an appeal before the Additional District Collector. However, vide order dated 1.3.1994, the learned Additional District Collector dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.1994, the petitioners approached the Board. However, vide order dated 19.8.1994, the Board partly allowed the appeal. While setting aside the decree of injunction passed by the learned Additional District Collector, the Board upheld the rest of the order dealing with the extent of land to be restored to the petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. S.K. Jindal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that once the order dated 2.5.1992 had been upheld all the way to the Board, the Deputy District Collector was not justified in amending the said order. This aspect of the case has not been appreciated either by the Additional District Collector, or by the Board. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Krishna Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has contended that the order dated 2.5.1992 merely granted the petitioners the right to be entitled to the restitution of 50 bighas and 4 biswas of land. The fact that they are entitled to restitution of land was upheld upto the Board. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Krishna Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has contended that the order dated 2.5.1992 merely granted the petitioners the right to be entitled to the restitution of 50 bighas and 4 biswas of land. The fact that they are entitled to restitution of land was upheld upto the Board. Thereafter, the petitioners were asked to give their options. According to their option dated 2.5.1992, they had opted for the land in Khasra Nos. 19, 123, 124 and for the land on the southern side of Khasra No. 117. The fact that the petitioners are entitled to retain their land on the southern side of Khasra No. 117 has not been disturbed by the Deputy District Collector. However, the Deputy District Collector has noted that respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were in possession of the northern part of Khasra No. 117. Although there was no option with regard to the northern side of Khasra No. 117 given by the petitioners, yet the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were being dispossessed from their land. Therefore, the Deputy District Collector was justified in amending the order dated 2.5.1992 and in holding that respondent Nos. 5 to 10 should not be dispossessed from the northern part of Khasra No. 117. Secondly, the Additional District Collector has discussed the entire evidence in detail and has come to a finding that since there was no option given for the northern part of Khasra No. 117 and yet respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were being dispossessed from the northern part of the said khasra, obviously the petitioners had used undue influence with the Tehsildar to have their way. After meticulously discussing the evidence, the Additional District Collector had validly passed the order dated 1.3.1994. The Board vide its judgment dated 19.8.1994 was, therefore, justified in upholding the order of the Additional District Collector. Moreover, since the land in Khasra Nos. 19, 123, 124 has been restored to the petitioners, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the northern part of Khasra No. 117. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned orders. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 7. Admittedly, vide order dated 23.4.1976, it was directed that 76.78 standard acres of land be acquired from the petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned orders. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 7. Admittedly, vide order dated 23.4.1976, it was directed that 76.78 standard acres of land be acquired from the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners had challenged the said order initially before the R.A.A., subsequently before the Board, and lastly before this Court. Once the matter was remanded to the Board, vide order dated 30.1.1992, the Board had held that only 47.84 standard acres of land was surplussed, but 28.94 standard cares of land had to be restored back to the petitioners. The petitioners had moved an application under Section 144 of C.P.C. for restoration of 28.94 standard acres of land which is equivalent to 50 bighas 4 biswas of land. Their application was duly accepted by the Deputy District Collector and they were asked to give their option. On 2.5.1992 itself, the petitioners gave their option and claimed that 18 bighas 16 biswas in Khasra No. 90, 7 bighas 7 biswas in Khasra No. 123, 17 bighas 8 biswas in Khasra No. 124 and 6 bighas 13 biswas land lying on the southern side of Khasra No. 117 should be restored back to them (Emphasis added). However, despite the option given by the petitioners, and without any order of the Court directing that the northern part of Khasra No. 117 be given to the petitioner, the Tehsildar, Pipalda dispossessed respondent Nos. 5 to 10 from the northern part of Khasra No. 117. Therefore, respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were justified in seeking clarification/amendment of the order dated 2.5.1992. After all, the petitioners were getting a portion of land to which they never opted for and they were never entitled to. Considering the option and considering the fact that there was no order of a competent Court directing the Tehsildar to dispossess respondent Nos. 5 to 10 from the northern side of Khasra No. 117, the Deputy District Collector was justified in directing that the northern part of Khasra No. 117 should be left in the possession of respondent Nos. 5 to 10, meanwhile, the petitioners are entitled to southern part of Khasra No. 117. 8. 5 to 10 from the northern side of Khasra No. 117, the Deputy District Collector was justified in directing that the northern part of Khasra No. 117 should be left in the possession of respondent Nos. 5 to 10, meanwhile, the petitioners are entitled to southern part of Khasra No. 117. 8. The Additional District Collector in his order dated 1.3.1994 has meticulously discussed the entire evidence of the case and has rightly concluded that in order to grab more land than what they were entitled to, the petitioners enter into an understanding with the Tehsildar, for restoring the northern part of Khasra No. 117. Therefore, the Additional District Collector was also justified in upholding the order dated 16.12.1993. Similarly, the Board is equally justified in upholding the order of Additional District Collector. Thus, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. 9. The series of appeal before the R.A.A. and before the Board, seem to be motivated from the greed of the petitioners to grab more land than what they are entitled to. Admittedly their options were only for the southern part of Khasra No. 117. But not just satisfied with having received the southern part, it seems that the petitioners wanted the northern part of Khasra No. 117 as well. Therefore, they entered into an understanding with the Tehsildar for getting the northern part of the land vacant and having the said portion of khasra No. 117 restored to them. However, obviously the petitioners are not entitled to having the northern portion restored to them as they never gave any option for the said portion. Greed, being a vice, can neither be protected, nor promoted by the Courts. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Deputy District Collector, Additional District Collector and the order passed by the Board are absolutely legal and valid. 10. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.