Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 803 (RAJ)

Vallabhdas v. District Collector, Rajsamand

2011-04-22

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—Heard the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. 2. The Tehsildar, Nathdwara Moved and application on 16.1.2009 under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 [the Rules of 1970] before the Collector, Rajsamand (Case No. 1/2009 challenged the allotment of an agricultural land admeasuring 1.13 bighas and comprised in khasra No. 2785 of revenue village Nathdwara as made in favour of the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 on 27.3.1974. In these proceedings, the petitioner No. 3 herein, Shri Pradeep Kumar, moved an application for impleadment, but the application so moved by the petitioner No. 3 came to be rejected by the order dated 22.2.2010 (Annex. 1). 3. Thereafter, the learned Collector, Rajsamand proceeded to decide the application so moved by the Tehsildar by the order dated 26.2.2010 (Annex. 2) with the findings, inter alia, that the land in question was regularised in favour of the non-applicants by the order of the Tehsildar as made on 22.5.1969; and the appeal filed against the regularisation order was dismissed on 3.3.1971. The learned Collector further found that Settlement Officer proceeded on the basis of such regularisation order and accorded gair khatedari rights to the non-applicants. The Collector also pointed out that various civil suits had been filed alleging the land in question to be of way and such suits were also dismissed. In an overall comprehension of the record, the learned Collector found no case for cancellation of allotment made nearly 40 years back; and dismissed the application filed by the Tehsildar. The Collector also pointed out that various civil suits had been filed alleging the land in question to be of way and such suits were also dismissed. In an overall comprehension of the record, the learned Collector found no case for cancellation of allotment made nearly 40 years back; and dismissed the application filed by the Tehsildar. The learned Collector considered the record and observed as under:- ^^fely la- 321 o"kZ 1973 dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr fely dh vknsf'kdk esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27-3-1974 ds vuqlkj rglhy dk;kZy; dh fely la- 1382@1968 ds }kjk rglhynkj] ukFk}kjk us xzke ukFk}kjk ¼flgkM+ dh lkfcd [k- ua- 1465 jdck 5-12- ch?kk Hkwfe ds jsxqyjkbZts'ku dk vkns'k fnukad 22-5-1969 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k ftldh vuqikyuk esa rRle; vizkFkhZx.k }kjk ns; yxku jkf'k Hkh tek djk nh xbZ FkhA uxj ikfydk] ukFk}kjk ds }kjk Hkh vukifr nh xbZ gSA cankscLr vf/kdkjh ds }kjk lsVyesUV izfØ;k ds nkSjku rglhynkj] ukFk}kjk ds mDr vkns'k ds n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mDr jsxwyjkbZTM Hkwfe dh gky vk-[ka-ua- 2785 jdck 1-13 ch?kk rFkk 2786 jdck 1-12 ch?kk Hkwfe dks flok; pd ls de djrs gq, ,oa Hkwfe dh fdLe ckjkuh nks;e fu/kkZfjr dj vizkFkhZx.k ds uke xSj [kkrsnkjh gd ls ntZ fd;s tkus dk vkns'k fnukad 27-3-1974 ikfjr fd;k x;kA ftldk vadu udy tekcUnh lEor~ 2022-2025 ds dSfQ;y ds dkWye ij uksV vafdr gSA mDr ekeys esa mYys[kuh; gS fd rglhynkj] ukFk}kjk ds jsxqyjkbZts'ku vkns'k ds fo:) o"kZ 1971 esa Hkh vihy ftyk dysDVj] mn;iqj dks is'k gqbZ Fkh] ftldk vihy la[;k 67@1971 eqfrZc gqvkA vihy esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 3-3-1971 ls vihyk.V dh vihy dks fujLr fd;k x;k o rglhynkj] ukFk}kjk dk jsxqyjkbZts'ku vkns'k cgky j[kk x;kA mDr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) jkLrs ds fcUnq dks ysdj flfoy dksVZ esa Hkh okn izLrqr gq, gS] tks [kkfjt gq, gSaA xzkeokfl;ksa ds vkokxeu gsrq i;kZIr ek=k esa vkustkus gsrq jkLrk miyC/k gksuk izdV gSA vizkFkhZx.k ds vf/koDrk }kjk cgl ds nkSjku izLrqr m)gj.kksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr m)gj.k bl ekeys esa Hkh izHkko'khy gksrs gSaA vizkFkhZx.k dks rglhynkj] ukFk}kjk ds }kjk vkns'k fnukad 22-5-1969 dks jsxqyjkbZt dh xbZ vkSj mDr jsxqyjkbZts'ku vkns'k dks cankscLr vf/kdkjh us Hkw izcU/k izfØ;k ds nkSjku lgh ekuk gS rFkk vkns'k fnukad 27-3-1974 ls vizkFkhZx.k ds [kkrs Hkwfe dks xSj [kkrsnkjh gd ls ntZ fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] tks U;k;ksfpr gksuk izdV gSA vizkFkhZx.k dks o"kZ 1969 dks vkoafVr Hkwfe dks 40 o"kZ ls vf/kd vof/k O;rhr gksus ds mijkUr [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% mijksDr foospukUrxZr rglhynkj] ukFk}kjk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dks vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS rFkk vizkFkhZx.k dks vkoafVr Hkwfe ds vkoaVu vkns'k dks cgky j[kk tkrk gSA 4. The petitioners seek to question the said order dated 26.2.2010 (Annex. 2) with the contention that the land in question had been recorded as way and is still being used by the residents of the locality as way towards the burial ground and towards river; and the Collector has erred in maintaining the illegal allotment. It is also contended in challenge to the order dated 22.2.2010 (Annex. 1) that the Collector has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner No. 3 for impleadment merely on the observation that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to consider interference in this matter in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. So far rejection of the application for impleadment is concerned, in the application filed by the Tehsildar under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970, even on the principles of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the petitioner No. 3 could not have been permitted to join the proceedings as a party thereto. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 3 or any of the other petitioners herein did not file any application for cancellation of allotment and when the matter was otherwise being considered by the Collector on the application moved by the Tehsildar, he cannot be faulted in disallowing the prayer of the petitioner No. 3 for intervention. 7. So far the merits of the order are concerned, the impugned order cannot be considered suffering from any jurisdictional error and in any case, calls for no interference in the writ jurisdiction at the instance of the petitioners. 8. This Court would hasten to observed that so far the petitioners are concerned, if they have any grievance in the matter and are otherwise not disentitled to raise such grievance, they may take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law. So far the present writ petition is concerned, there appears no reason to entertain. Subject to the observations above, the writ petition is dismissed.