Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 648 (RAJ)

Mangi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2014-03-05

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 11.11.05 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent no.3 herein against the order dated 29.1.02 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA),Pali partly allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner no.1 herein, against the order dated 20.2.01 passed by the District Collector, Pali, allotting the land ad measuring 0.44 hectare comprising khasra no.1039 at village-Nadol in favour of the respondent no.3 herein, stands allowed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that respondent no.3-Vishva Bharti Shikhsha Samiti, Nadol applied for allotment of 0.44 hectares of land of khasra no.1039 situated at village-Nadol in the year 1997 under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agriculture Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas and Other Buildings of Public Utility) Rules, 1963 (for short "the Rules of 1963"), for establishing a school. The District Collector vide order dated 20.2.01 allotted the said land in favour of the respondent no.3 for the purpose of construction of the school building for consideration of Rs. 43,355/-. 3. Aggrieved by the allotment made as aforesaid, the petitioner no.1-Smt. Mangi Devi preferred an appeal before the RAA, Pali under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") on the ground that the respondent no.3 is a profit making institution and its sole object is not of imparting education and therefore, the allotment made in its favour under the Rules of 1963 is illegal. It was contended that on behalf of the petitioner no.1 that the land of khasra no.1039 is a long strip adjacent to the road and while allotting the land, the neighbouring sides have not been specifically mentioned and thus, the allotment made is incomplete and taking advantage thereof, the Patwari has demarcated the allotted land in arbitrary manner, as a result whereof, the existing way to the khatedari land of the petitioner no.1 comprising khasra no.1035/1, shall stand obstructed. The RAA after due consideration partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, vide judgment dated 29.1.02 and directed that the allotted land should be re-demarcated while leaving 25 ft. wide approach road in the west side of the petitioner's land comprising khasra no.1035/1. 4. The RAA after due consideration partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, vide judgment dated 29.1.02 and directed that the allotted land should be re-demarcated while leaving 25 ft. wide approach road in the west side of the petitioner's land comprising khasra no.1035/1. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.02 passed by the RAA, the respondent no.3 preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan under Section 76 of the Act, which stands allowed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate the facts and law in correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that the RAA after due consideration of the material on record, arrived at a categorical finding that demarcation done by the revenue authority is altogether different from the map submitted along with an application for allotment and the proposal made in pursuance thereof. Learned counsel submitted that the land of khasra no.1039 measuring 0.44 hectares allotted in favour of respondent no.3 is a long strip situated adjacent to the road which is used by the petitioner as approach road to his khatedari land comprising khasra no.1035/1. Learned counsel submitted that if the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is allowed to stand, the only way available to the petitioner to enter into his khatedari land shall stand obstructed. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the RAA in balancing the equities was not required to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue. 6. On the other hand, counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submitted that as per the revenue record, no way passing through khasra no.1039 exists and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that if the demarcation made is allowed to stand, she will be deprived of the beneficial use of the land is absolutely incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that the approach road to the petitioner's land is in the eastern side of her land and therefore, the claim of the petitioner to have yet another way passing through the land allotted to the petitioner has rightly been declined by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel submitted that the matter with regard to opening of the new way is dealt with the competent authority under the provisions of Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Learned counsel submitted that the matter with regard to opening of the new way is dealt with the competent authority under the provisions of Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. But, in any case, while hearing the appeal against the allotment order, the RAA had no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass an order creating a new way dehors the revenue record. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 7. Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the State has supported the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. It is to be noticed that the land in question ad measuring 0.44 hectares is allotted in favour of the respondent no.3 out of 4.12 hectares land comprising khasra no.1039 recorded in the revenue record as 'barani pratham sivay chak'. It is not even the case of the petitioner that in the revenue record, there exists any way passing through the said land comprising khasra no.1039 and thus, the petitioner wants creation of a new way on the ground of non availability of approach road to her land comprising khasra no.1035/1. In the considered opinion of this court, the RAA had no jurisdiction to direct opening of a new way while deciding the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the allotment made in favour of the respondent no.3. Needless to say that the matter with regard to opening of the new way, if necessary, has to be dealt with by the competent revenue authority in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law. 10. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue has committed no jurisdictional error in setting aside the order passed by the RAA acting without jurisdiction, directing demarcation of the land allotted to the respondent no.3 after leaving 25 ft. wide approach road to the petitioner's land comprising khasra no.1035/1. 11. It is pertinent to note that the Board of Revenue has categorically observed that a 'gair mumkin way' passing through khasra no.1734 is already available to the petitioner and therefore, the RAA could not have created a new way for the petitioner passing through khasra no.1039. wide approach road to the petitioner's land comprising khasra no.1035/1. 11. It is pertinent to note that the Board of Revenue has categorically observed that a 'gair mumkin way' passing through khasra no.1734 is already available to the petitioner and therefore, the RAA could not have created a new way for the petitioner passing through khasra no.1039. In any case, if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the non availability of the approach road then, it is always open for her to avail the appropriate remedy available under the relevant statute. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, this court is firmly of the opinion that the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******