Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 991 (RAJ)

Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-18

ARUN MISHRA, KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2012
Hon'ble JOSHI, J.—This intra court appeal has been filed as against the order dated 16.10.2002 passed by the Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3989/2002, whereby the Single Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner was a temporary cultivation lease-holder for the year Samvat 2046, corresponding to year 1989. His temporary cultivation lease was not renewed, however, upon his application, the Assistant Collector, Rawatsar vide order dated 22.05.2000 (Annex.1 to writ petition) issued permanent allotment in favour of the appellant-petitioner of 16 bighas land of Kila No.1, 2, 10, 11, 20 and 21 of Stone No.157/30 and Kila No.1 to 10 of Stone No.157/39. Subsequently, the same officer vide order dated 27.05.2000 (Annex.2 to writ petition) cancelled the earlier order dated 22.05.2000. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2000, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2001. A revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2002 (Annex.4 to writ petition). Hence, the appellantpetitioner filed the writ petition before the Single Bench on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. The Single Bench after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the relevant material on record dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2002. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Bench, the appellant-petitioner has preferred this intra court appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Single Bench is bad, illegal and against the law. It is contended that the Single Bench failed to consider that Assistant Collector passed the order cancelling the allotment of the appellant without giving him opportunity of hearing, thus, there was gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the allotment was cancelled simply on the report of the Patwari and the appellant-petitioner was not given chance to produce the material in his favour. It is contended that petitioner was a temporary cultivation lease holder and even after cancellation of temporary cultivation lease, the appellant-petitioner was entitled for permanent allotment of land, which cannot be denied. It is contended that petitioner was a temporary cultivation lease holder and even after cancellation of temporary cultivation lease, the appellant-petitioner was entitled for permanent allotment of land, which cannot be denied. It is further contended that under the Colonization Act and the rules made thereunder have no provision of review, thus, treating the report of Patwari as review cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that if the Government authorities did not follow the procedure for allotment of land, the appellantpetitioner cannot be penalized for the mistake committed by the authorities. Hence, it is prayed the the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the prayer made in the writ petition may be allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contentions has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in (RRD 1993 Page 596). 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Single Bench. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants so also other material available on record. 7. On perusal of the order dated 22.05.2000, it comes out that it has not been specifically mentioned as to under what rules the permanent allotment is being made and what procedure was adopted. The report of the Allotment Committee was also not sought because had there been any recommendation of he Allotment Committee, the copies of the same would have been furnished in the subsequent litigation. Thus, it is clear that the procedure for permanent allotment as provided in the Rajasthan colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Area) Rules, 1975 was not followed while making allotment to the appellantpetitioners, therefore, immediately after passing of the order of allotment, the same was cancelled by the same officer within a week and there was no illegality in passing such order. So far as the contention of the learned counsel that opportunity of hearing was not given is concerned, the appellant-petitioner had chance to make out his case before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, but the appellant-petitioner failed to place on record any material to substantiate his case and even before the Single Bench the appellant-petitioner could not indicate any rule or regulation by which a temporary cultivation lease-holder for one year could get a right for permanent allotment of the agriculture land. Hence, in our view, there is no error or illegality in the order of the Assistant Collector cancelling the allotment made in favour of the appellant-petitioner. 8. In our considered opinion, the Single Bench has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter and we do no find any error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Single Bench. No case is made out to make interference in the impugned order. The intra court appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, the intra court appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.