Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1522 (RAJ)

Devsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-28

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition, filed only on 07.11.2009 and essentially directed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board'/'the Board of Revenue') as back as on 06.05.1998. 2. An agricultural land comprised in kila Nos. 17 and 24 of Murabba No. 35 at Chak 18AMS admeasuring 2 bighas came to be alloted to the petitioner as a small patch under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakra Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1955 by an order dated 08.07.1994 as issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar ('SDO'). This order dated 08.07.1994 was questioned in appeal by the Gram Panchayat, Malkhera through Karnel Singh son of Ram Dayal Singh essentially on the ground that the land comprised in Murabba No. 35 had already been allotted to the Gram Panchayat and the land in question could not have been allotted to the petitioner. By the order dated 29.04.1995, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh ('RAA') found the submissions as made by the appellant justified and also found that the Collector, Sriganganagar in his order dated 04.05.1994 had directed the SDO not make any allotment of the land in question as the Gram Panchayat, Malkhera had made an application for mutation in the revenue record while claiming that the land in question had already been allotted to it. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.1995 as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, the petitioner preferred a second appeal bearing number L.R./44/95/Hanumangarh before the Board of Revenue. The Board, by its order dated 06.05.1998, rejected the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner regarding competence of the appeal before the RAA and delay in filing such appeal with the observations that the RAA had granted the permission for filing the appeal and had decided the same on merits while impliedly condoning the delay. On the merits of the case, the Board found the allotment made by the SDO unjustified being in disobedience of the order issued by the Collector, Sriganganagar on 04.05.1994; and further, that the land in question had been allotted to the Gram Panchayat in the year 1966 but the record could not be corrected for a fire incident in the Tehsil. The Board of Revenue found no case for interference and, while observing that the appellant may take the deposited amount of allotment back, proceeded to dismiss the appeal with the following observations:- " gekjk ;g lqfopkfjr eg gS fd ;g fuxjkuh@vihy pyus ;ksX; fuxjkuh ugha gS D;ksafd tehu tSj cgl dk vkoaVu vihyk.V ds i{k esa ,l0Mh0vks0 uksgj }kjk ftyk dyDVj] Jhxaxkuxj ds vkns'k fn0 4-5-1994 dh vogsyuk djrs gq, fd;k gS tcfd tehu tSj cgl dks lu~ 1966 esa xzke iapk;r ey[ksM+k dks vkoafVr fd;k tk pqdk Fkk fdUrq rglhy fjdkMZ esa vkx yx tkus ds dkj.k xzke iapk;r ds gd esa gq, lu~ 1966 esa tehau tSj cgl ds vkoaVu vkns'k dh fdz;kfUofr jktLo fjdkMZ esa ugha gks ldh FkhA ge fo}ku odhy jsLiksa dh bl nyhy ls lger gS fd fodkl lfefr xzke iapk;r ey[ksM+k tfj;s Jh duZyflag }kjk nk;j dh xbZ nk;j jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh ds ;gka mDr vihy fnukad tkudkjh bl ckcr~ vkoaVu vkns'k ,l0Mh0vks0 uksgj ls pkj efgus dh nsjh dks vihy dks xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fuf.kZr djus ds lkFk gh ekQ dj fn;k gS ,oa Jh duZyflag dks lgh :i ls vihy pyus ;ksX; vuko';d i{kdkj ekuk gSA ,l0Mh0vks0 }kjk fd;s x;s NksVh iV~Vh ds vkoaVu vkns'k fnukad 8-07-1994 cgd vihyk.V vkoaVu gsrq fu/kkZfjr fu;eksa dh izfdz;k dk mYy?kau djrs gq, fd;k x;k vkoaVu vkns'k gS] tks dkuwu dh :g esa dk;e j[kus ;ksX; vkns'k ugha gSA blfy;s tehu tSj cgl ds vihyk.V ds gd esa fd;k x;k vkoaVu vkns'k tSj cgl ,l0Mh0vks0 uksgj fn0 8-7-1994 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vihyk.V pkgs rks vius iSls tks mlus jkT; ljdkj esa tek djk, gS] os okfil ys ldrk gSA " 4. It appears that after the order so passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner chose to prefer a so-called revision petition before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, purportedly under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act of 1956'). The petitioner submits that the revision petition was entertained and a stay was also granted in his favour but then, the revision petition was rejected by the order dated 18.06.2009 (Annex. 5). In this position, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking to question the orders passed by the RAA and the Board of Revenue. 5. The petitioner submits that the revision petition was entertained and a stay was also granted in his favour but then, the revision petition was rejected by the order dated 18.06.2009 (Annex. 5). In this position, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking to question the orders passed by the RAA and the Board of Revenue. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute since long and got the same allotted after payment of consideration; and has spent a lot of money for development of this land and has acquired valuable rights. It is submitted that the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority was not even competent and was required to be dismissed. 6. The submissions as made in this matter do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The substance of the matter remains, as is noticeable from the observations made by the RAA and Board of Revenue, that the land in question was not available for allotment and rather, the Collector, Sriganganagar had directed the SDO concerned not to make any allotment in relation to the land in question. Coupled with this, the fact remains that as per the claim of the Gram Panchayat, Malkhera, the land in question had already been allotted to it in the year 1966; but could not be mutated in the revenue records for a fire incident in the Tehsil. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the RAA and the Board of Revenue cannot be faulted in not approving the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. 7. So far the revision petition before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister is concerned, suffice is to say that under Section 83 of the Act of 1956, the Government is empowered to revise the order passed in the administrative side but the order dated 06.05.1998 as passed by the Board of Revenue was not an administrative order. The Government cannot be faulted in pointing out in its order dated 18.06.2009 that the revision petition was not maintainable. 8. The submissions as made about the petitioner having derived an equity for long possession have their own shortcomings as no equity could be considered existing for pendency of entirely incompetent proceedings more particularly when, as against the claim of the petitioner, there exists the claim of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of old allotment. 9. 8. The submissions as made about the petitioner having derived an equity for long possession have their own shortcomings as no equity could be considered existing for pendency of entirely incompetent proceedings more particularly when, as against the claim of the petitioner, there exists the claim of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of old allotment. 9. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to entertain this writ petition so as to consider maintaining an illegal and unauthorised allotment in favour of the petitioner. 10. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******