Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1774 (RAJ)

Dhulya v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer

2012-08-16

ALOK SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 10.10.2011, passed by the Board of Revenue on a reference made under Section 88(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1956'). 2. The facts of the case are that in pursuance to the order dated 02.08.2004, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Public Interest Litigation No.1536/2003, the Collector, Sawai Madhopur on 14.08.2006 made a reference to the Board of Revenue on the ground that the allotment of land to the petitioner and the conferment of khatedari right in 1989 thereon was made in contravention of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') in view of the fact that the said land was classified at the relevant time as Gair Mumkin Talab in the Jamabandi pertaining to Samvat 2032 to 2035. A recommendation was made for the cancellation of the said allotment. 3. The Board of Revenue on consideration of the reference found that the allotment of 4 bighas 8 biswas of land to the petitioner in old Khasra No.309 admeasuring 79 bighas 11 biswas in Village Boreef was illegally made under mutation No.172 dated 27.08.1976 and so also was the conferment of khatedari rights under the mutation No.319 dated 20.05.1989. The Board of Revenue further held that no khatedari right could be conferred on any person in land classified as Gair Mumkin Talab which was the land in Government ownership set apart for public user. It held that Gair Mumkin Talab was land in the ownership of the State Government under Section 88 of the Act of 1956 and could not in any eventuality whatsoever be used for conferment of khatedari rights in view of the specific prohibition of Sec. 16 of the Act of 1955. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition as also the impugned order dated 10.10.2011, passed by the Board of Revenue. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an innocent allottee and illegality if any, in the allotment process not occasioned by fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner, should not after 30 years of the allotment render him landless as in the meantime the petitioner has invested money, labour and his life in making the land allotted cultivable and productive. It is submitted that the land is the sole source of the livelihood of the petitioner and his family. 6. The impugned order dated 10.10.2011 is founded upon a reference made pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court issued on 02.08.2004 in DB Civil Public Interest Litigation No.1536/2003. Apart from the fact that the order dated 10.10.2011 was passed by the Board of Revenue on the reference made by the Collector, Sawai Madhopur in pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench, it is also ex facie evident that the petitioner was illegally conferred khatedari rights on the land classified as Gair Mumkin Talab contrary to the prohibition of Section 16 of the Act of 1955. No interference in the impugned order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the Board can thus be made in this writ petition. 7. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed in view of the writ petition being dismissed. 8. The petitioner will however be free to move an application / representation for allotment of agricultural land as a landless agriculturist – now so rendered – to the State Government. On the application so made, the State Government is directed to sympathetically address and decide the same keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has been made to suffer loss of khatedari rights in a situation not of his own making. The application for allotment of agricultural land made in pursuance of this order shall be decided by the competent authority under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 within three months of its filing.