Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1783 (RAJ)

Phusya v. Board of Revenue

2012-08-17

ALOK SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—A challenge has been made to the order dated 21.12.2011, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 2. The Board of Revenue has held that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 were allotted land under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rule, 1970 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1970') on 17.07.1969 and put into possession thereof which was evident from the fact that in the Khasra Girdawari filed before the Board of Revenue, the agricultural produce cultivated by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 was also indicated. The Board further noted that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 were thereafter conferred khatedari rights ten years subsequent to the allotment in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970 as was evident from the Khasra Girdawari of Samwat 2052 to 2055. In this view of the matter, the Board dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. 3. I have perused the writ petition as also the impugned order dated 21.12.2011 and heard the counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made. 4. In my considered opinion, the petitioners have no case whatsoever to agitate before this Court. On the petitioners' own admission, their status is no better than that of trespassers. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are not the khatedars of the land allotted to the respondent Nos.1 to 6, nor ever did even apply for regularisation of the land allegedly in their possession by resorting to an application for regularisation under the Rules of 1970. Further subsequent to the conferment of khatedari rights, a vested right, on the respondent Nos.1 to 6, no proceedings for cancellation of allotment under Rule 20(2) of the Rules of 1970 could be taken by the petitioners as was sought to be done and the only remedy available to them as aggrieved party, if at all the petitioners could answer that description, lay a suit for declaration impugning the khatedari of the respondent Nos.1 to 6. This was admittedly not done. In my opinion, the present case set up by the petitioners before this Court is thus absolutely misdirected. Aside of the complete misdirection in law for reasons stated above, counsel for the petitioners has not been able to establish before this Court that the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue is perverse or liable to be set aside on any other ground. 5. Aside of the complete misdirection in law for reasons stated above, counsel for the petitioners has not been able to establish before this Court that the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue is perverse or liable to be set aside on any other ground. 5. The writ petition deserves dismissal. Dismissed accordingly. Stay application also stands dismissed in view of the petition being dismissed.