Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2234 (RAJ)

Reda Ram through LRs. v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-17

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction in the orders as passed by the revenue authorities remanding the matter to the allotting authority for the purpose of reconsideration of the question of allotment of 3 bighas and 18 biswas of land as a small patch. 2. It appears that the land in question, comprised in kila Nos. 22 to 25 of Murabba No. 42 at Chak 78 RB, was sought to be taken in allotment as a small patch and for that matter, late Shri Reda Ram, the predecessor of the present petitioners, who was holding the land in adjoining Murabba No. 55 made an application but another application seeking allotment of the same land as small patch was also made by late Shri Bhoma Ram, the predecessor of the respondents No. 5/1 to 5/4, who was holding the other parcels of land in the said Murabba No. 42. 3. The allotting authority, by its order dated 12.11.1990, proceeded to make the allotment of the land in question in favour of Reda Ram while observing that Bhoma Ram did not appear after making the application. 4. It is borne out from the material placed on record that one Shri Het Ram questioned the allotment so made in favour of Shri Reda Ram by way of an appeal bearing No. 32/1991 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar while asserting that he was in possession of the land in question as a temporary cultivation lease holder. Accepting this appeal by its order dated 6.1.1994, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar remanded the matter to the allotting authority for decision afresh. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand, the matter was taken up for reconsideration by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar and, for the purpose, notices were also issued in relation to the said Shri Bhoma Ram whereupon, the report about his demise was received but his heirs and legal representatives put in appearance before the allotting authority. The allotting authority, in its order dated 7-4-1995 found in the first place that Het Ram had already left the village and was not having any adjoining land so as to make a claim for small patch allotment. The allotting authority, in its order dated 7-4-1995 found in the first place that Het Ram had already left the village and was not having any adjoining land so as to make a claim for small patch allotment. The learned allotting authority further found that the application had been moved by Bhoma Ram after moving of the application by Reda Ram; and also observed that Bhoma Ram had never attempted to assert his desire to take the land in allotment. Hence, while rejecting the claim as made by the heirs of Bhoma Ram, the land in question admeasuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas was ordered to be allotted in favour of Reda Ram, the predecessor of the present petitioners. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.4.1995, the heirs and legal representatives of Bhoma Ram preferred an appeal bearing number 287/1995 that was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar-camp-Raisinghnagar (`the RAA') by its order dated 11.8.2000 and the matter was, again, ordered to be remanded after finding that the claim of Bhoma Ram had not been properly considered by the allotting authority. 7. 7. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the RAA, the present petitioners preferred a revision petition that was considered and dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 4.3.2003 with the following observations:- ^^5- fo}ku odhy izkFkhZx.k dk izeq[k rdZ fd Hkksekjke ds okfjlksa us dksbZ vkosnu ugha fn;k o Hkksekjke us vkosnu dks fonMªk dj fy;kA fo}ku odhy dk ;g dFku fjdkWMZ ls lkfcr ugha gksrk fd Hkksekjke us vkosnu fonMªk dj fy;k gksA Hkksekjke ds [kkrs ds eq-u- 42 dk gh fookfnr Hkwfe Lekyisp gS vkSj fu;e 3 dh O;k[;k ds vuqlkj izkFkhZx.k dh Hkh bl ij izkFkfedrk curh gS tcfd vizkFkhZ dk eq-ua- 55 tks fHkUu ,LDok;j gS og Hkh fpirk gqvk gSA tc rd ,slk dksbZ lk{; ekStwn u gks fd Hkksekjke us viuk vkosnu i= okfil ys fy;k ;k bl gsrq dksbZ fyf[kr esa fn;k gS rc rd Hkksekjke }kjk fn;k x;k izkFkZuk i= yfEcr ekuk tkosxk vkSj Hkksekjke vFkok mlds okfjlksa dks Hkh ml ij lquus dk vf/kdkj gksxk o bl gsrq vkoaVu vf/kdkjh dks ldkj.k fu.kZ; nsuk visf{kr gSA blh n`f"V ls v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us mHk; i{kksa dh lquokbZ gsrq izdj.k fjek.M fd;k mlesa fdlh izdkj dh {ks=kf/kdkj lEcU/kh voS/krk ,oa vfu;ferrk ugha ikbZ tkrhA vkoaVu vf/kdkjh fu;eksa ds lUnHkZ esa ijh{k.k dj ik=rk dks tkap dj gh vkoaVu dh dk;Zokgh mHk; i{kksa dh lquokbZ ds ckn dj ldrk gSA blls fdlh i{k fo'ks"k ds vf/kdkjksa ds foijhr dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gksxhA** 8. The petitioners also filed a review application before the Board of Revenue that has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.6.2011 after the Board found nothing of any error apparent on the face of the record. 9. Seeking to question the orders so passed by the RAA and the Board of Revenue, the learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the said revenue authorities have failed to consider that the land in question came to be allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners in accordance with the law and after the allotting authority had extended adequate opportunity of hearing to all the concerned, including Bhoma Ram. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, when Bhoma Ram chose not to press on his application, the allotting authority was not at fault in not making the allotment in his favour. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, when Bhoma Ram chose not to press on his application, the allotting authority was not at fault in not making the allotment in his favour. The learned counsel further submitted that the land in question has continued in cultivatory possession of Reda Ram, the predecessor of the present petitioners and after him, of the petitioners; and there appears no justification for disturbing the allotment existing for 20 years. The learned counsel also submitted that there remains no justification for repeat remand of the matter and in relation to the allotment of small patch land admeasuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas, the petitioners cannot be made to litigate unendingly. The submissions do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 10. So far the question of repeat remand is concerned, as noticed, earlier the matter was remanded when one Het Ram made a claim over the land in question asserting himself to be the temporary cultivation lease holder. The Revenue Appellate Authority, after finding such claim worth consideration, did not commit any illegality in remanding the matter. After remand, the allotting authority was required to extend an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned and that included the legal representatives of Bhoma Ram. The allotting authority, of course, passed an order in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners but the same was not approved by the RAA and then, by the Board of Revenue essentially for the reason that the propositions as adopted by the learned allotting authority that Bhoma Ram gave up his claim or having did not pursue his claim, were not worth approval. In the given fact situation, the course as adopted by the RAA and by the Board, of remanding the matter to the allotting authority for consideration afresh, appears to be serving the cause of justice and remains unexceptionable. 11. So far the claim of late Shri Bhoma Ram is concerned, the learned RAA has not accepted the proposition of the allotting authority that Bhoma Ram did not pursue his application. Such observations appear to be in accord with the fact situation and so also the surrounding circumstances; and in any case, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or perversity. Noticeable it is that the land in question is comprised in kila Nos. Such observations appear to be in accord with the fact situation and so also the surrounding circumstances; and in any case, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or perversity. Noticeable it is that the land in question is comprised in kila Nos. 22 to 25 of Murabba No. 42 and, admittedly, Bhoma Ram was holding the adjoining land in the same square, i.e., Murabba No. 42. No cogent reason is forthcoming as to why Bhoma Ram would not have been interested in pursuing his claim for allotment of the land in question as a small patch. Even then, the learned authorities have remanded the matter; and it appears just and proper that the allotting authority considers the matter afresh and makes due adjudication on the rival claims. 12. So far the claim of equity on behalf the petitioners is concerned, this Court would not like to make final comments in that regard herein while leaving everything open for consideration by the allotting authority but suffice is to observe for the present purpose that as per the record, the matter has continuously been in dispute. The allotment in question was made on 12.11.1990 and Het Ram filed the appeal questioning the same in the year 1991. Since then, the matter remained in dispute at different stages. If at all, the petitioners seek to contend themselves being in possession of the land in question, it has been the possession during the currency of dispute and litigation; and on that basis, no claim for equity could be readily accepted in this writ petition. 13. In view of what has been discussed above, when there appears no case of jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the RAA and the Board of Revenue, this Court is not inclined to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.