Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1679 (RAJ)

Sohan Singh v. Board of Revenue

2012-08-01

ALOK SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—A challenge has been laid to the order dated 27.02.2008, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as also the order dated 10.1.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the review petition. 2. The facts of the case are that the proceedings were taken against the petitioner under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1956) in respect of the petitioner's encroachments over 0.17 hectare of land in khasra No.70 village Adda, District Bharatpur. Vide order dated 22.04.1997. On consideration of the reply by the petitioner to the notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, the Nayab Tehsildar found that the petitioner would be entitled to consideration of regularization of his encroachment and a formal allotment. The matter was referred to the Allotment Advisory Committee. The said Committee however vide its order dated 09.09.1998 found that the petitioner was employed in Government service and therefore he not covered in the category of landless agriculturist. It was also found that the land in respect of which allotment was sought and the encroachment obtained was land used as a road. It was further recorded that the petitioner's father had purchased the possession of the land in issue from an earlier trespasser. Consequently, the recommendation of the Nayab Tehsildar under his order dated 22.04.1997 was negatived and it was directed that the steps be taken for the petitioner's eviction. 3. An appeal by the petitioner before the RAA against the order dated 9.9.1998 was also dismissed vide order dated 30.07.1999. Further appeal to the Board of Revenue and thereafter a review petition before the Board have also dismissed vide impugned orders dated 27.02.2008 and 10.01.2011 respectively. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition as also the orders of the courts below. 5. The order of the courts below are founded upon specific findings of fact with regard to the petitioner not being a landless agriculturist by virtue of being employed in Government service. This fact has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner. Further the other finding of fact of the courts below is that the land in issue is being used as a public way and on this count no allotment could be made to the petitioner. This fact has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner. Further the other finding of fact of the courts below is that the land in issue is being used as a public way and on this count no allotment could be made to the petitioner. Aside of the aforesaid facts, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was claiming regularisation on the basis of a purchase made from the earlier trespasser which was absolutely unacceptable for the purpose of exercising the discretion of the Allotment Advisory Committee under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agricultural purposes) Rules, 1970 if otherwise available for regularization of the possession and for formal allotment. The findings of the Board of Revenue as also the RAA and the Allotment Advisory Committee being based on facts, I see no ground to interfere in the writ petition. The order of the Board of Revenue is neither perverse nor vitiates any misdirection in law. 6. The writ petition is without force and the same is therefore dismissed. Stay application stands dismissed in view of the writ petition being dismissed.