Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 59 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. L. Rsof Ganpat Singh

2010-01-07

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that writ petition may kindly be allowed and order 12.9.2006 (Annex. 6) passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer may kindly be quashed and set aside and the orders dated 19.2.1992 (Annex. 3), 10.3.1993 (Annex. 4) and dated 8.10.1999 (Annex. 5) may kindly be restored. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Common ancestors of the respondent late Ganpat Singh in his life time moved an application for allotment of land whereupon after considering the facts mentioned in application, it was decided in the metting of the allotment committed held on 16.2.1983 land measuring 5 bigha and 11 biswa be allotted to the applicant, Ganpat Singh. 4. Thereafter vide State Government order dated 2.2.1984 the reserve price-Najrana was fixed and it was decided that the Najrana for the land allotted to Ganpat Singh be charged at the rate of Rs. 250/- per bigha totalling Rs. 1387.50 run of Rs. 1388 in 10 installments. In pursuance of the policy decision taken by the State, Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandalgarh vide order dated 24.10.1986 directed the Patwari concerned to recover the Najarana as per order from Ganpat Singh and to raise the demand in accordance with law. Despite the demand, Ganpat Singh failed to make the payment, therefore, the Tehsildar, Mandalgarh made an application to the District Collector, Bhilwara praying therein that the land be resumed in favour of the Government. Upon the application, the District Collector passed order for resumption of the land, one was passed on 19.2.1992 and second was passed on 10.3.1993. 5. Ganpat Singh being dissatisfied with the orders dated 19.2.1992 and 10.3.1993 by which allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act. The appeal ultimately came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 8.10.1999 upholding the order of cancellation passed by the District Collector Bhilwara on 19.2.1992 and 10.3.1993 (Annex. 3 and 4). 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.10.1999, Ganpat Singh preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the appeal was ultimately came to be disposed of by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.9.2006. 7. Learned Government Counsel, Mr. 3 and 4). 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.10.1999, Ganpat Singh preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the appeal was ultimately came to be disposed of by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.9.2006. 7. Learned Government Counsel, Mr. Hemant Choudhary argued that the order of Board of Revenue was having no jurisdiction to take shield of Rules of Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in RCC Area), 1972. The Tehsildar, Mandalgarh has rightly moved an application for cancellation of the allotment upon which the District Collector has rightly passed the orders dated 19.2.1992 and 10.3.1993 and the Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Ganpat Singh while upholding the orders passed by the District Collector, Bhilwara. However, the Board of Revenue without any jurisdiction has passed the order, hence same be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Nahar learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has contended that the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 12.9.2006 has passed upon correct appreciation of questions of law. However, the Board of Revenue without any jurisdiction has passed the order, hence same be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Nahar learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has contended that the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 12.9.2006 has passed upon correct appreciation of questions of law. He has drawn attention of the Court of Para 5 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under:- 5- izLrqr izdj.k esa ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd vihyk.V dks vkoaVu jktLFkku dksyksukbZts'ku ¼vyksVesaV vkWQ xouZesUV yS.M Vq iksaxMse vkmLVht bu vkj lh lh ,fj;k½ :Yl] 1972 ,oa mlds rgr cuk;s x;s fu;eksa ds rgr fd;k x;k gS vkSj fu;e 1972 ds fu;e 7 esa Hkh la'kksf/kr fu;e 7-, tksM+k x;k gS ftlds rgr izko/kku bl izdkj gS%& 7-A : Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules an order of cancellation of allotment passed due to non-payment of any instalment, may be revoked by the allotting authority, if the allottee pays interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of such instalment of such instalment from its due date until its payment + 6% more interest from the date of default by way of compensation unless in meantime the land has been allotted to some one else." mDr fu;e 7-, ds rgr vfrfjDr ewY; dh fd'r tek djkus esa gqbZ pwd ds ekeys esa C;kt dh jkf'k ds lkFk vfrfjDr ewY; tek djkus ij vkoaVu ;Fkkor j[ks tkus ds izko/kku fd;s x;s gSA vihyk.V dks mDr /kkjk 7-, ds izko/kkuksa dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa vihyk.V Hkh mDr fu;e 7-, ds izko/kkuksa ds eqrkfcd jkf'k tek djkus dks rS;kj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn fookfnr Hkwfe ds vkoaVu dks fujLr dj fn;s tkus vkSj mldks flok;pd ntZ dj fn;s tkus ds i'pkr~ mDr fookfnr Hkwfe dk ;fn fdlh vU; i{kdkj dks vkoaVu ugha fd;kx;k gks rks vihyk.V dks fd;k x;k vkoaVu fu;e 7-, ds rgr fu/kkZfjr dh tkus okyh jkf'k ;fn vihyk.V bl fu.kZ; ds nks ekg esa tek djk nsrk gS rks vihyk.V dks fd;k x;k vkoaVu ;Fkkor jgsxkA 9. He has further contended that although he has not filed reply of the writ petition, but he has shown copy of the bankers cheque and stated the respondents have sent a bankers cheque of Rs. He has further contended that although he has not filed reply of the writ petition, but he has shown copy of the bankers cheque and stated the respondents have sent a bankers cheque of Rs. 9400 (with interest) to the petitioner in pursuance to the judgment dated 12.9.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue; and according to him nothing remains more. The copy of the bankers cheque and registry receipts be taken on record. 10. Having considered the rival submissions advanced at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 12.9.2006, hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.