Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1544 (RAJ)

Maniram v. Devi Singh

2009-07-06

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is a second appeal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 9.12.1999 of Revenue Appellate Authority passed in appeal No. 17/98. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the disputed land hearing khasra No. 671 measuring 14 bighas 6 biswas located in village Diniyasar (Hanumangarh District) was allotted to the respondent No. 1 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules 1970 (in short `the Rules of 1970'). The appellant has a grievance that the disputed land was in his possession, as such, it was wrongly allotted to the respondent without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1970. The appellant had earlier filed a complaint before Additional Collector for cancellation of the allotment under rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 whereupon Additional Collector rejected his application and upheld the allotment vide his judgment dated 24.9.1988. Thereafter the appellant against filed a second application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 before Collector Sriganganagar who also rejected the application and upheld the allotment by his judgment dated 18.7.1990. Subsequently the appellant filed first appeal under the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority who by his impugned judgment dated 9.12.1999 dismissed the appeal, both on limitation and merit. Hence the second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for rival parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned allotment was made by Sub Divisional Officer Nohar on 22.11.1975 without following procedure of the Allotment Rules of 1970. The disputed land had been in possession of the appellant, even then it was allotted to the respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has right to second appeal even when his earlier two applications for cancellation of allotment under Rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules of 1970 were rejected. He cited 1995 RRD 175 in support of his contention. 5. Countering the arguments of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that the allotment of the impugned land was made on 22.11.1975 against which appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority was filed in the year 1998 - after lapse of 23 years; by then the respondent No. 1 had already acquired khatedari rights in the disputed land. The earlier two applications of the appellant filed before Addl. The earlier two applications of the appellant filed before Addl. Collector and Collector under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 were also dismissed on 24.9.88 and 18.7.90 respectively. No appeal was preferred against these two judgments of the Addl. Collector & Collector. Now the same allotment order could not be challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority was heavily time barred and it could not be said that the appellant had no knowledge of impugned order of allotment, as against the very same allotment order of Sub Divisional Officer, the appellant had filed applications under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. As such, there is nothing illegal in the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority. 6. Arguing on behalf of the land holder through Tehsildar Rawatsar, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate contended that the impugned allotment was made as per the procedure on the advise of the allotment Advisory Committee by Sub Divisional Officer. The validity of the procedure and allotment was upheld by both Addl. Collector & Collector vide their earlier judgments. If appellant had any objection, he should have appealed against the judgment of the Addl. Collector or Collector. As such an appeal against the allotment order is misplaced. There is nothing illegal in the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, perused the impugned judgment dated 9.12.99 of Revenue Appellate Authority and gone through the record available on file. 8. Admittedly, the disputed land was allotted to respondent No. 1 on 22.11.75 and by now the respondent No. 1 has also acquired khatedari right in this allotted land. This is also admitted that the appellant had earlier filed an application under Rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules of 1970 before Addl. Collector who rejected the application for cancellation of the allotment by his judgment dated 24.9.88; no appeal was preferred against this judgment of Addl. Collector. Strangely after some gap of time, the appellant filed second application for cancellation of the same allotment before Collector, which was again rejected by Collector vide his judgment of Collector. Undeterred appellant filed first appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority on 31.1.1998 against the impugned allotment order dated 22.11.1975 along with an application of section 5 of the Limitation Act. Collector. Strangely after some gap of time, the appellant filed second application for cancellation of the same allotment before Collector, which was again rejected by Collector vide his judgment of Collector. Undeterred appellant filed first appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority on 31.1.1998 against the impugned allotment order dated 22.11.1975 along with an application of section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this application the appellant has stated that he came to the impugned allotment on 19.1.1998, thereafter he obtained copy of allotment order on 20.1.1998. The averment of appellant in the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act before Revenue Appellate Authority is mendacious and mischievous in view of the fact that the same appellant had challenged the same order of allotment dated 22.11.1975 before Additional Collector in the year 1988 and also before Collector Sriganganagar. Bare perusal of the files of the lower courts and judgments dated 24.9.1988 and 18.7.1970 Collector Sriganganagar nails the lie and mis-statements that the appellant come to know of the allotment order of 22.11.1975 on 19.1.1998. On this point of limitation the finding and inference of Revenue Appellate Authority is perfectly in order, warranting no interference. Filing of appeal after 23 years of the allotment order which was fully in the knowledge of the appellant is evidently inordinately time barred. 9. Notwithstanding the clear bar of limitation as discussed above, I would like to examine the matter on merit also in the interest of justice. The appellate claims that the land was in his possession as such it was an occupied land not available for allotment. Presuming, though not admitting, the disputed land was in possession of the appellant at the time of allotment such possession would be considered as a trespass only. A trespassed land is not considered as an occupied land as defined under section 5(44) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955; such land is available for allotment. Another contention of the appellant that the land allotted was different from the khasra number written on the application of the allotment, is not tenable. The land is allotted to the eligible persons as per availability of the land on the advise of the Allotment Advisory Committee; what khasra number of written by applicant on the application is immaterial. Another contention of the appellant that the land allotted was different from the khasra number written on the application of the allotment, is not tenable. The land is allotted to the eligible persons as per availability of the land on the advise of the Allotment Advisory Committee; what khasra number of written by applicant on the application is immaterial. The contention of the appellant that the procedure of the Rules of 1970 was not followed is also untenable in view of the fact that the allotment was made on the advise of the allotment Advisory Committee and Additional Collector, Collector and Revenue Appellate Authority have held that the allotment was made after following the given procedure of the allotment. This factual finding of courts below cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. Both the lower courts have also held that the allottee was a landless bona fide agriculturist who was allotted the disputed land in the year 1975 on the advise of the allotment Advisory Committee. This concurrent factual finding of the lower courts cannot be interfered with. Thus, there is no merit in the case either. 9. The learned counsel has cited 1995 RRD 172 which show s that in the event of cancellation of the allotment by Collector the only aggrieved party is the allottee who can seek relief by way of appeal. In this case, the allotte of the disputed land is respondent No. 1 and his allotment was never cancelled by any of the courts below. Thus this citation is not applicable in this case. 10. It would not be out of place to mention here that the appellant first of all challenged the allotment order dated 22.11.1975 before Additional Collector thereafter the same allotment was challenged before Collector and subsequently the same order was also challenged before Revenue Appellate Authority with intermittent gap of time. This is clearly abuse of the process of law. If such tendency is encouraged by the Court there would never be an end to a vexatious litigation even after final adjudication by the competent court of jurisdiction. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, it is evident that this appeal has absolutely no force and deserves to be dismissed with cost. 12. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1000/-. Pronounced.