Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 757 (RAJ)

Lachha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-27

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer : "(i) An appropriate writ or direction, in the nature of certiorari may be issued, quashing the orders dated 3.9.1985 (Annex.9) passed by the Board of Revenue and 2.8.96 (Annex.12) passed by Collector (Administration), Bikaner, 30.1.2002 (Annex.15) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and 13.1.2012 (Annex.16) passed by the Board of Revenue. (ii) An appropriate writ or direction may be issued allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 and allotment made order dated 3.1.1976 (Ann.4) made in favour of the petitioner may kindly be restored. (iii) An appropriate, writ direction on order, the allotment order dated 10.7.66 (Ann.1) in favour of Keshu Ram, husband and father of respondents No.6 & 7 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iv) cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. As per facts of the case, an allotment was made in favour of one late Keshu Ram Purohit in khasra No.447 in village Bhadla Tehsil Nokha on 10.7.1966 and, in pursuance of the allotment, mutation was entered in his name on 23.11.1966 and eh was enjoying possession of the said land as per allotment; but, the said allotment was cancelled by he S.D.O. (South), Bikaner without notice and allotted the land to the petitioner Lachha Ram, Moti Ram and Om Das vide order dated 3.1.1976. The order passed by the S.D.O. (South), Bikaner dated 3.1.1976 was challenged before the District Collector, Bikaner by Smt. Surt, Smt. Santosh and Devilal, wife, daughter and son of late Keshu Ram Purohit being legal heirs of late Keshu Ram Purohit because Keshu Ram Purohit died. The District Collector dismissed the application of the respondents vide order dated 6.8.1979. Against the order of the District Collector, Bikaner an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 10.6.1980 passed in Appeal No.11/1980. The petitioner who was subsequent allottee and was party in the appeal challenged the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer by way of filing appeal No.49/80. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 3.9.1985, in which, following order was passed : "6. The petitioner who was subsequent allottee and was party in the appeal challenged the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer by way of filing appeal No.49/80. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 3.9.1985, in which, following order was passed : "6. The first issue is whether an appeal against the order of the Collector would lie before the Revenue Appellate Authority. As laid down in the various authorities of the Board, an appeal can be preferred only by an aggrieved person the question whether the person preferring an appeal is an aggrieved person or not would depend on the facts of the case. In this particular case the and was duly allotted to Kesu Ram and continued to be in his name for 10 years. There is nothing on record to show that the allotment was cancelled by due process of law. He therefore had a genuine grievance and has the right to prefer an appeal. There is, therefore, no force in the contention that the appeal was not maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 7. The ruling cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to this case because the facts of the case are absolutely different. 8. It is an admitted position that this land was earlier allotted to Kesu Ram. There is nothing on record to show that the allotment made in his favour was cancelled by the competent authority after giving him due notice. As the only document available is a muta-tion canceling the allotment on which orders have been given by the Tehsildar, who had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment. The Collector should have examined whether in view of this land can be treated as being vacant before subsequent allotment can be made. 9. In view of this the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is upheld and the appeal is dismissed." The judgment dated 3.9.1985 passed by the Board of Revenue in the appeal filed by the petitioner was not challenged further and the same attained finality. 3. It is very strange that soon after dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue on 3.9.1985, again, the petitioner preferred an application on 17.12.1985 under Rule 14(4) of the Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970. The Addl. 3. It is very strange that soon after dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue on 3.9.1985, again, the petitioner preferred an application on 17.12.1985 under Rule 14(4) of the Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970. The Addl. Collector, Bikaner again dismissed the said application vide order dated 2.8.1996 while observing that the matter has attained finality after rendering judgment by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer on 3.9.1985 and held that there was no error in the allotment made in the year 1996 in favour of late Keshu Ram Purohit. The order passed by the Addl. District Collector, Bikaner dated 2.8.1996 was further challenged by the petitioner by way of filing appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner but the learned RAA, Bikaner while considering entire facts of the case again held that there is no error in the order passed by the Addl. Collector (Admn.), Bikaner dt. 2.8.1996 and further reiterated that allotment made in favour of late Keshu Ram on 10.7.1966 was perfectly in accordance with law. It is also observed that earlier the same controversy was agitated up to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and finally decided, therefore, no interference is required. 4. The petitioner preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue again and Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed the appeal vide order dated 13.1.2012, in which, it is categorically observed in para 6, 7 and 8 that proceedings initiated by the petitioner is totally illegal and he cannot be permitted to take shelter of the Rules of 1970 because allotment was made in accordance with provisions of the Rules of 1957. Para 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue are as follows : ^^6- eSaus mHk; i{k ds ;ksX; vf/koäkx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k] vkyksP; fu.kZ; rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA 7- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls lqLi"V gS fd iz'uxr vkoaVu ^vkoaVu fu;e 1957* ds vUrxZr fd;k x;k FkkA bl vkoaVu ds 19 o"kZ mijkar vihykFkhZ us vkoaVu fujLrhdj.k dh dk;Zokgh ^vkoaVu fu;e 1970* ds vUrxZr izkjEHk dh gSA bl nkSjku vkoaVh dks [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj Hkh izkIr gks pqds gSA ,d ckj [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr gksus ds mijkar vkoaVu dks fujLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ^vkoaVu fu;e 1957* ds vUrxZr vkoaVh dk mlh xzke dk fuoklh gksuk vko';d ugha gS ftlesa Hkwfe fLFkr gks tSlk fd bl U;k;ky; us jkT; ljdkj cuke ?ku';keflag 1987 vkj-vkj-Mh- 550 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd iwoZ esa Hkh vihykFkhZ us jktLo e.My rd vkoaVu fo"k;d ukekUrjdj.k ds fo:) vihy nk;j dh Fkh ftlesa bl U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 3-9-85 ¼vihy ua- 49@80@ ld.M vihy@,yvkj@xaxkuxj½ esa bl vkoaVu dks voS/k ugha ekuk gSA izR;{kr% ;g vihy cyghu gS rFkk vkyksP; fu.kZ; vgLr{ksiuh; gSA 8- ifj.kkeLo:i vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA** 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that allotment made in the year 1966 in favour of late Keshu Ram was not in accordance with law. He has raised some disputed questions with regard to residence of late Keshu Ram and his identity. It is also argued that after judgment of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the year 1985, since no proceedings were initiated by the District Collector, Bikaner h has preferred proceedings under the Rules of 1970, therefore, all the orders right from 1966 to 13.1.2012 may be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner is in possession since 1976 but none of the grounds has been considered by any of the authorities for the purpose of adjudicating the matter objectively, therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and all the orders impugned may be quashed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused entire writ petition and various orders challenged in this writ petition. 7. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused entire writ petition and various orders challenged in this writ petition. 7. Admittedly, there is concurrent finding based upon the facts that allotment was made in favour of late Keshu Ram Purohit in the year 1966 in accordance with provisions of the Rules of 1957. Said allotment made in favour of late Keshu Ram remained in force till it was cancelled by the S.D.O. (South), Bikaner vide order dated 3.1.1976. The land was allotted subsequently to the petitioner and, on the basis of the allotment, the petitioner is challenging allotment made in favour of the late Keshu Ram in the year 1966. In all the proceedings before the District Collector, Bikaner, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer the petitioner was party. The claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected up to the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 3.9.1985; but, even after losing the battle upto the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 3.9.1985, he has initiated proceedings without any locus under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970; and, second time, all the courts below adjudicated the matter and held that no illegality has been committed in he allotment made in favour of late Keshu Ram Purohit. 8. In my opinion, from the year 1966 to the date when subsequently the land was allotted to the petitioner the petitioner was not conceived in the proceedings but in the proceedings of cancellation of allotment made in his favour before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and in the appeal before the Board of Revenue the petitioner was party and his case was examined upto the Board of Revenue and the judgment dated 3.9.1985 passed by the Board of Revenue is not challenged by the petitioner, therefore, it became final. In view of the above position, there was no occasion for launching proceedings again under the Rules of 1970 by the petitioner. The private respondents are the actual allottee of the land but they have been deprived of their right due to illegal proceedings initiated by the petitioner again after dismissal of appeal by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 3.9.1985. The private respondents are the actual allottee of the land but they have been deprived of their right due to illegal proceedings initiated by the petitioner again after dismissal of appeal by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 3.9.1985. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the orders impugned in this writ petition because twice concurrent findings are given by the courts below with regard to allotment made in favour of late Keshu Ram Purohit and held that there was no error. 9. The above facts which are based upon he concurrent finding with regard to validity of the allotment of the petitioner loudly speak that the petitioner somehow wants to grab the land while alleging baseless allegations against late Keshu Ram Purohit. Once all the revenue Courts adjudicated the matter and held that allotment made in favour of late Keshu Ram Purohit was valid, then, there was no occasion to initiate the proceedings afresh under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. The petitioner has not only tried to take advantage of quasi judicial proceedings but has harassed the widow and other legal heirs of late Keshu Ram Purohit who were minors and still he has chosen to file writ petition before this Court inspite of clear order passed by the Board of Revenue. Such type of conduct of the petitioner is required to be censured. 10. In view of above facts, this writ petition is hereby dismissed with direction to the District Collector, Bikaner to restore possession of the land in question to the respondents No.6 and 7, widow and daughter of late Keshu Ram Purohit, within a period of two months because they have been denied fruits of the allotment due to illegal proceedings initiated after the judgment of appeal passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 3.9.1985. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to impose cost upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for enjoying fruits of the land in question without any legal right.