Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 958 (RAJ)

Kunde Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2009-04-02

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975') against the impugned judgment dated 1.6.1996 of Additional Colonisation Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted certain piece of land under the Rules of 1975 on 16.12.1992 but before the allotment order or allotment letter could be issued, allotting authority cancelled the purported allotment on 14.1.1993/15.1.1993 on the ground of advance report of District Magistrate against the allottee, aggrieved against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority Jaisalmer who by his impugned judgment dated 1.6.1996 dismissed the appeal. Hence the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a bona fide landless agriculturist who was allotted land under the Rules of 1975 on 16.12.1992. In the enquiry report of C.I.D. nothing adverse was found against the petitioner. Nonetheless this allotment was cancelled on 15.1.1993 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is against the principle of natural justice. In support of this contention 1984 RRD 111 was cited. The Revenue Appellate Authority has also illegally rejected the appeal although there was no advance report from District Magistrate enclosed in the file. Thus, any reference made to such report of District Magistrate is untenable in view of the C.I.D. clearance given in favour of the petitioner. It was also requested to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because advocate of the petitioner in the lower Court did not inform the petitioner in time about the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority. It was also pleaded that a meritorious case should not be rejected on the ground of limitation only. In support of this contention learned counsel cited 1998 RRD 319. 5. Vehemently opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the period of limitation for filing revision under Rule 23(2) of the Rules of 1975 is 60 days. But the instant revision against the impugned judgment dated 1.6.1996 of Revenue Appellate Authority was filed on 30.7.1999 more than three years later. 5. Vehemently opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the period of limitation for filing revision under Rule 23(2) of the Rules of 1975 is 60 days. But the instant revision against the impugned judgment dated 1.6.1996 of Revenue Appellate Authority was filed on 30.7.1999 more than three years later. Thus the revision is heavily time barred and deserves to be dismissed on this ground only. Regarding merit of the case it was argued that under Rule 16(6) of the Rules of 1975 the report of District Magistrate is final. According to the report of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Jaisalmer, the petitioner is involved in smuggling of silver and other anti-national activities. The place under consideration is a sensitive border area between India and Pakistan and no allotment of land can be made to such a person of anti-national antecedents. It was also argued that, in fact, there was no allotment made in favour of the petitioners; there was simply an advice of the allotment Advisory Committee for an allotment. Neither the allotment order was issued nor any communication of allotment was made to the petitioner. No possession of the alleged allotted land was ever given to the petitioner. As such there is no merit in the case occasioning condonation of delay. So the petition should be dismissed. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, perused the impugned judgment of Additional Colonisation Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority Jaisalmer and gone through the file of the case. 7. As far as point of limitation is concerned, this is undisputed that the revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 1.6.1996 was filed on 30.7.1999 with delay of almost more than three years. There is explicit limitation provided under Rule 23(2) of the Rules of 1975 - which is within 60 days from the date of final order of Additional Colonisation Commissioner. Evidently, this is huge delay in filing the revision. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanying the revision petition is vague and does not give any satisfactory and convincing ground for condonation of delay. On the one hand the petitioner is saying that his advocate did not inform him on time and on the other hand he was pursuing the matter at the level of Dy. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanying the revision petition is vague and does not give any satisfactory and convincing ground for condonation of delay. On the one hand the petitioner is saying that his advocate did not inform him on time and on the other hand he was pursuing the matter at the level of Dy. Commissioner Colonisation all along for getting allotment order and possession of the land. Both these facts are contradictory to the contention of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the rejection of his appeal when he was in touch with the concerned office. Apparently, thus, the revision is enormously time barred. But before throwing away this case simply on the technical ground of limitation it is worthwhile to have a glance at the merit of the case as held in 1998 RRD 319. 8. Examining the case on merit, perusal of the record shows that the concerned Allotment Advisory Committee made recommendation for allotment of land to the petitioner but before any allotment order could be issued, the fact about the report of District Magistrate about the involvement of petitioner in the smuggling of silver, crossing of the India-Pakistan border and other anti-national activities was brought to the notice of Dy. Colonisation Commissioner. So pursuant to this serious adverse report against the petitioner the allotting authority put up the matter back to the Allotment Advisory Committee which on 15.1.1993 cancelled the allotment. 9. The record reveals that the earlier purported allotment of 16.12.1996 was just a recommendation of the allotment. No formal allotment order was issued to the petitioner. There was no communication of any sort to the petitioner about the alleged allotment of the land. No land was ever handed over to the petitioner pursuant to the alleged allotment. All these facts and evidence lead to the conclusion that the petitioner had not developed any vested right or interest in the purportedly allotted land. Even the petitioner has not described any specific land in which he claims to have vested interest. As such there was no need to hear him before the purported paper allotment was reviewed and cancelled by the Allotment Advisory Committee and allotting authority on the adverse report of District Magistrate Jaisalmer involving anti-national antecedents of the petitioner. Even the petitioner has not described any specific land in which he claims to have vested interest. As such there was no need to hear him before the purported paper allotment was reviewed and cancelled by the Allotment Advisory Committee and allotting authority on the adverse report of District Magistrate Jaisalmer involving anti-national antecedents of the petitioner. So the citation 1984 RRD 111 does not apply in this case due to difference of facts, as the person involved in above cited case was an allottee holding valid allotment order and in favour of whom the allotted land was duly handed over. But such is not the case under consideration as neither the allotment order was made nor any land was ever handed over; with the result that the petitioner cannot be said to have developed any right or interest in a non-specific land. In fact the petitioner has failed to mention the exact khasra number of the land or described specifically any land in which the claims to have developed interest. 10. It is a discretion and prerogative of the allotment advisory committee to allot the land to the persons who are bona fide landless agriculturists and fit for allotment in all respects. In the case of petitioner there was adverse report from District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of Jaisalmer imputing antinational activities upon the petitioner; such anti-national activities include smuggling of silver and crossing of Indo-pak border. According to rule 16(6) of the Rules of 1975 report of the District Magistrate about the anti-national activities of a person is final and allotting authority is bound to accept the same and abide by it. Such person of doubtful national integrity is not fit for land allotment on the sensitive border area of the country. As such there was nothing illegal when Allotment Advisory Committee reconsidered its decision and cancelled the Allotment. Additional Colonisation Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority also did not commit any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment upholding the order of Allotment Advisory Committee and allotting authority, which does not warrant any revisional interference. As such the revision petition fails on merit also. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is dismissed. Pronounced.