Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1437 (RAJ)

Tara Ram v. State

2009-05-29

SANGEET LODHA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.5.97 passed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan, whereby in exercise of power conferred under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act of 1956') the allotment of 0.08 hectare agriculture land comprising Khasra No. 2365 situated at revenue village Bilawas made in favour of the petitioner by the Allotting Authority vide order dated 19.6.85, has been set aside. 2. The petitioner was allotted aforesaid land, by the Allotting Authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer vide allotment letter dated 19.6.85. The possession of the land was, handed over to the petitioner and thereafter the land is being cultivated by him. It is stated that on 16.8.93 one Shri Mukanaram Sirvi filed a complaint before the Tehsildar, Sojat alleging that the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of the Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (in short 'the Rules of 1970'). Accordingly, vide communication dated 17.11.93 while furnishing the necessary details regarding the illegality committed in allotment, the Tehsildar, Sojat requested the Additional Collector, Pali for cancellation of the allotment made in favour the petitioner. It appears that the said communication of the Tehsildar, Sojat was treated to be an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970, for cancellation of the allotment. However, after due consideration of the matter, the Additional Collector, Pali found that the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner absolutely in accordance with the Rules of 1970 and the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Accordingly, the application for cancellation of the allotment was rejected vide order dated 8.11.95. 3. After a lapse of about 12 years from the date of the allotment one Shri Khangar Singh Choudhary, MLA from Jaitaran constituency preferred an application before the Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan, alleging therein that the allotment of the land in question was made in favour of the petitioner by the Allotting Authority against the Rules of 1970 and the application seeking cancellation of the allotment has been rejected by the Additional Collector, Pali, illegally, accordingly, it was prayed that the allotment deserves to be cancelled in exercise of the revisional powers of the State Government under Section 83 of the Act of 1956. A revision petition has been allowed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan by order impugned dated 17.5.97 and while cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner the District Collector, Pali has been directed to set apart the land comprising Khasra No. 2365 allotted in favour of the petitioner for 'Gair Mumkin Rasta' i.e. public way. 4. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the record relating to allotment made in favour of the petitioner was requisitioned by the Revisional Authority and the factual report was also obtained from the District Collector, Pali. As mentioned in the order neither any record showing the existence of the public way in the land in question was produced before the Revisional Authority nor any comment regarding the existence of the public way was made in the factual report submitted. However, on the basis of the map produced the Revisional Authority concluded that two public ways passed through the disputed land comprising Khasra No. 2365 and on account of allotment made in favour of the petitioner same stand obstructed. The Revisional Authority opined that the allotment of the disputed land was made in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the facts relating to the use of the disputed land for public way were not brought on record. According to the Revisional Authority since the land was being used for public way, therefore, the same should not have been allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Allotting Authority. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings arrived by the Revisional Authority are ex facie contrary to record and perverse. The learned counsel submitted that as per the revenue record the land in question was 'Siway Chak' i.e. the Government land available for allotment. The learned counsel submitted that even in the revenue map produced by the petitioner as Annexure-2A and a map produced by the respondents with additional affidavit no public way exists-in Khasra No. 2365. The learned counsel submitted that as per the revenue record and the map produced, it is apparent that public way exists in Khasra No. 2361 and not in Khasra No. 2365. The learned counsel submitted that as per the revenue record and the map produced, it is apparent that public way exists in Khasra No. 2361 and not in Khasra No. 2365. The learned counsel submitted that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was upheld by the Additional Collector vide order dated 8:11.95 after examining all the aspects of the matter, therefore, after a lapse of about 12 years there was no occasion for the Revisional Authority to set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on the pretext that to public ways passed through the disputed land. The learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the Revisional Authority are ex facie contrary to record and perverse. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Counsel submitted that on account of allotment of the disputed land two public ways have been obstructed and, therefore, the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner for the reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority cannot be faulted with. However, the learned Government Counsel fairly conceded that as per the revenue record at the time of allotment made in favour of the petitioner the disputed land was shown to be 'Siway Chak' and was available for allotment under the Rules of 1970. The learned Government Counsel also conceded that even as per the map produced no public way passes through the land comprising Khasra No. 2365. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, no revenue record showing that any public way passes through the disputed land comprising Khasra No. 2365 was produced before the Revisional Authority and the finding that two public ways... passed through the disputed land has been arrived at by the Revisional, Authority solely on the basis of the revenue map available on record However, a perusal of the map which has been produced before this Court also does not show existence of any public way passing through the land comprising Khasra No. 2365. Moreover, it has been fairly conceded by the learned Government Counsel that as per the revenue record including the map no public way passes through . the land comprising Khasra No. 2365. In this view of the matter, the findings arrived at by the Revisional Authority are ex facie, contrary to the revenue record and perverse and cannot be sustained. 9. the land comprising Khasra No. 2365. In this view of the matter, the findings arrived at by the Revisional Authority are ex facie, contrary to the revenue record and perverse and cannot be sustained. 9. Indisputably, as per the revenue record the land in question was 'Siway Chak' i.e. the Government land, available for allotment, then, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules of 1970, cannot be faulted with. The land having been allotted in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the law, a right is vested in him to hold the land and he cannot be deprived of the same in such a perfunctory manner. If the land allotted to the petitioner is required for any public purpose, then, the same can be acquired by adopting the procedure laid down for acquisition of the land under the relevant statute. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Revisional Authority has seriously erred in setting aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner without examining the matter in its entirety and objectively. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 17.5.97 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan is set aside and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 19.6.85 is restored. The petitioner shall be entitled for cost from the respondents quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.Writ Petition Allowed. *******