Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 680 (RAJ)

SAHI RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014-03-10

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
Judgment 1. This writ petition is directed against notification dated 27.7.12 issued by the Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, whereby while partially superceding the notification dated 15.4.08, creating a new revenue village-Jairoop Nagar, the limits and boundaries thereof stands altered. The petitioners have also questioned the order dated 13.9.12 issued by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur and order dated 14.9.12 issued by the Tehsildar, Bilara, implementing the amended notification issued as aforesaid. 2. The relevant facts are that in exercise of the power conferred under Section 16 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ( for short “the Act”), the State Government created a new revenue village-Jairoop Nagar in Tehsil-Bilara, District-Jodhpur, vide notification dated 15.4.08. In the notification issued, the population of the village was shown to be 330 persons and the area of the village was specified as 348.2 hectares. The legality and propriety of the proposal of the State Government for creation of the new revenue village-Jairoop Nagar, was questioned by some of the villagers by way of a writ petition No.7217/07 before this court, which stood dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners therein to make representation before the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan. After creation of village, vide notification dated 15.4.08, a fresh writ petition was preferred by some of the villagers, which was also dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 12.5.08. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners therein, preferred a special appeal before the Division Bench of this court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.11.08 with the observations in the following terms: “It has come on record that the population of newly created village Jairoop Nagar is more than 330 persons, therefore, it cannot be said that the guidelines laid down by the State Government with regard to minimum population stands violated. That apart, simply because, the village has been named as Jairoop Nagar, it cannot be presumed that it has been named in the name of a particular person. Moreover, all these questions regarding the creation of the revenue village and its name cannot be gone into by this Court. That apart, simply because, the village has been named as Jairoop Nagar, it cannot be presumed that it has been named in the name of a particular person. Moreover, all these questions regarding the creation of the revenue village and its name cannot be gone into by this Court. If the writ petition has any grievance with regard to creation of the village or if the same has been created in defiance of the guidelines issued by the State Government then, he is at liberty to make an appropriate representation before the appropriate authority.” 3. Thereafter, on a representation being made by some of the villagers, the matter was inquired into by a team headed by Tehsildar-I, Bilara and on the basis of the report submitted, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Pipar City, explained the factual position to the District Collector, Jodhpur, vide communication dated 30.6.11 and opined that the amendment of the boundaries and limits of the newly created village is not viable and warranted. According to the petitioners, ignoring the report submitted by the competent authority, the State Government issued the impugned notification dated 27.7.12, altering the limits and boundaries of the newly created revenue village-Jairoop Nagar. In compliance of the notification issued as aforesaid, vide order dated 13.9.12, the Additional District Collector, Jodhpur directed the Tehsildar (Land Record), Bilara to carry out the necessary alteration in respect of the boundaries and population of the revenue village-Jairoop Nagar. Accordingly, Tehsildar (Land Record), Bilara has issued order dated 14.9.12, altering the geographical limits and figure of population of village-Jairoop Nagar and inclusion thereof in the village-Benan, out of which the new revenue village was created. Hence, this petition. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that inhabitants of village Magron Ki Dhani (East) were not in favour of their inclusion in newly created revenue village-Jairoop Nagar and therefore, after taking into consideration the attending situation, the fresh inquiry report i.e. report dated 30.6.11 was submitted by the SDO, Pipar City. It is submitted that after considering overall situation, some area of village-Jairoop Nagar was excluded and restored in village-Benan. It is submitted that the petitioners, inhabitants of newly created village cannot raise any grievance inasmuch as, necessary amenities have been provided therein. It is submitted that after considering overall situation, some area of village-Jairoop Nagar was excluded and restored in village-Benan. It is submitted that the petitioners, inhabitants of newly created village cannot raise any grievance inasmuch as, necessary amenities have been provided therein. It is submitted that under Section 16 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to create, abolish or alter the limits of the villages and therefore, the notification issued is in accordance with law. 5. By way of rejoinder, the petitioners have placed on record a resolution adopted by Gram Panchayat, Chaudhha (Annexure-15) recommending for cancellation of the amended notification issued as aforesaid. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the new revenue village was created after following the due process of law and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to bifurcate the new village and reduce the limits and boundaries thereof. Learned counsel submitted that all amenities i.e. Government school, cremation ground and approach roads to abadi area of the village-Jairoop Nagar, are situated in the area sought to be excluded. Learned counsel submitted that the new revenue village was created pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Gram Sabha and recommendations made by Tehsildar, SDO, District Collector and the Board of Revenue, however, while altering the limits and boundaries of the newly created village by issuing the impugned notification, the same procedure was not followed. Learned counsel submitted that as per the norms laid down by the State Government for creation of new village, the minimum population of the village should not be less than 250, however, by altering the limits and boundaries of the new revenue village, the population of the village stands reduced from 330 to 204. Learned counsel submitted that the decision taken by the State Government ignoring the factual position clarified by the competent authorities, without following the procedure laid down, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that on account of the alteration of the limits and boundaries of the village, the villagers stands deprived of all basic facilities and therefore, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notification without application of mind, cannot be sustained. 7. Learned counsel submitted that on account of the alteration of the limits and boundaries of the village, the villagers stands deprived of all basic facilities and therefore, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notification without application of mind, cannot be sustained. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the State Government has absolute power to alter the areas of the revenue villages and therefore, the decision of the State Government in altering the limits and boundaries of the village-Jairoop Nagar and directing inclusion of the specified area in the existing village-Benan, cannot be faulted with. Learned AAG submitted that on account of exclusion of the specified area, the inhabitants of village-Jairoop Nagar, are not adversely affected in any manner. It is submitted that the villagers of Magron Ki Dhani raised grievance regarding the inclusion of their area in the new revenue village and therefore, taking into consideration the overall situation, the decision taken by the State Government, does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. During the course of arguments, on 7.2.14, learned AAG was directed to produce the record of proceedings taken by the State Government leading to issuance of notification dated 27.7.12, amending the notification dated 15.4.08, creating new village-Jairoop Nagar, for the perusal of the court. Pursuant to the directions issued, the original record was produced by the learned AAG for perusal of the court and the photo stat copy of the proceedings taken by the State Government in pursuance whereof, the impugned notification is issued, is also placed on record. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Indisputably, Section 16 of the Act confers absolute power upon the State Government to create new or abolish existing divisions, districts, sub-divisions, tehsils, sub-tehsils and villages and alter the limits of any of them. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Indisputably, Section 16 of the Act confers absolute power upon the State Government to create new or abolish existing divisions, districts, sub-divisions, tehsils, sub-tehsils and villages and alter the limits of any of them. As observed by the Division Bench of this court that the matter with regard to the creation of new village, cannot be gone into by this court but then, it goes without saying that while taking a decision to create a new village or alter boundaries thereof, the State Government is under an obligation to follow the procedure and take into consideration all the relevant aspects affecting the inhabitants of the area as a result of creation of new village or altering boundaries thereof. Obviously, the procedure laid down for creation of a new village cannot be brushed aside altogether in perfunctory manner, while taking a decision to alter the limits/boundaries thereof. The availability of the necessary amenities to the inhabitants of the revenue village is also a relevant issue to be considered by the State Government while creating the new revenue village or altering the boundaries thereof. 11. It is not disputed before this court that new revenue village-Jairoop Nagar was created after being satisfied regarding the standard laid down for creation of new village vide circular dated 19.3.07 issued by the State Government. As per the norms laid down, the minimum population of the village to be created in general area, should not be less than 250. It is also not in dispute that the new revenue village was created by the State Government after following the procedure laid down. 12. A perusal of the proceedings drawn by the State Government while taking a decision to alter the limits and boundaries of the village-Jairoop Nagar, reveals that a representation was submitted by the villagers, residents of village-Magron Ki Dhani (East), before the Minister for Revenue, Government of Rajasthan and thereupon, vide order dated 11.5.11, the Minister for Revenue requisitioned the report from the Collector through Board of Revenue. Pursuant to the directions issued as aforesaid, after due inquiry, the District Collector, Jodhpur apprised the Minister for Revenue about correct factual position. Pursuant to the directions issued as aforesaid, after due inquiry, the District Collector, Jodhpur apprised the Minister for Revenue about correct factual position. After due consideration of the report submitted by the District Collector, the discrepancies likely to be crept in on exclusion of the area from the new revenue village-Jairoop Nagar and inclusion thereof in the revenue village-Benan, were noticed as under: ^^¼1½ xzke t;:iuxj esa fQj dksbZ fo|ky; ugh jgrkA ¼2½ mijksDr ekax ls lHkh xzkeoklh lger ugha FksA vr% ruko dh fLFkfr mRiUu gks ldrh gSA ¼3½ mDr ekax ekuus ij uohu xkWo t;:iuxj esa dksbZ ‘ke’kku gsrq Hkwfe ugha jgrh gSA ¼4½ mDr ekax ekuus ij xzke t;:iuxj esa vkcknh dks tksM+us ds fy, dksbZ dVkuh jkLrk ugha jgsxkA ¼5½ HkkSxksfyd n`f”V ls Hkh uohu izLrkfor lq>ko mfpr ugha ik;k x;kA ¼6½ rduhdh :i ls Hkh mDr lq>ko blfy, ekuuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk D;ksafd lq>ko dks ekuus ij t;:iuxj dh vkcknh ek= 204 jg tk;xh tcfd uhfr ds vuqlkj vkcknh de ls de 250 gksuh pkfg,A** 13. Thereafter, the Minister for Revenue, directed that concerned Tehsildar may be called for discussion alongwith the maps and a detailed report regarding the abadi land, the families and population of the villages. After submission of the report and discussion with the Tehsildar, in the note prepared the discrepancies emerging were noted as under: ^^mDr izdj.k esa iwoZ esa Hkh i`”B la[;k 16 ls 19 rd mi fuca/kd jktLo eaMy jktLFkku vtesj ftyk dyDVj tks/kiqj ,ao mi [k.M vf/kdkjh ihikM ‘kgj ls i= izkIr gq, gSA ftlesa ijh{k.k dj fuEu fo’kaxfr mRiUu gksus dh fLFkfr n’kkZ;h gS % ¼1½ xzke t;:iuxj esa fQj dksbZ fo|ky; ugh jg tkrkA ¼2½ mijksDr ekaxks ls lHkh xzkeoklh lger ugha FksA vr% ruko dh fLFkfr mRiUu gks ldrh gSA ¼3½ mDr ekax ekuus ij uohu xkWo t;:iuxj esa dksbZ ‘ke’kku gsrq Hkwfe ugha jgrh gSA ¼4½ mDr ekax ekuus ij xzke t;:iuxj esa vkcknh dks tksM+us ds fy, dksbZ dVkuh jkLrk ugha jgsxkA ¼5½ HkkSfrd n`f”V ls Hkh uohu izLrkfor lq>ko mfpr ugha ik;k x;kA ¼6½ rduhdh n`f”V ls Hkh mDr lq>ko blfy, ekuuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk D;ksafd lq>ko dks ekuus ij t;:iuxj dh vkcknh ek= 204 jg tk;xh tcfd jkT; ljdkj ds vkns’k fnukWd 20-8-2009 ds vuqlkj fdlh xkWo dh vkcknh 250 gksuh pkfg,A** 14. Thereafter, on 5.6.12, the Officer on the Special Duty, attached to the Office of Chief Minister, also opined that if the portion of the newly created village-Jairoop Nagar is again included in the village-Benan, the revenue village-Jairoop Nagar would not be satisfying the norms laid down for creation of the village and the residents thereof shall stand deprived of necessary amenities available such as school, cremation ground etc. 15. After the opinion being expressed as aforesaid at the different levels, the Minister for Revenue sought information as to whether the village-Jairoop Nagar falls within the desert area or not. Thereupon, a note was put up before the Minister for Revenue that the revenue village-Jairoop Nagar does not fall within the area of desert or semi-desert zone. Strangely enough, ignoring the opinion expressed at the various levels as aforesaid, without recording any reasons for disagreeing with the opinion expressed at the different levels and for deviation from the norms laid down for the creation of a new revenue village, the Minister for Revenue straight away directed to amend the limits of the revenue village allegedly on the demand of the villagers in a single line order, which reads as under: ^^i`”B 25@lh ij rglhynkj dh fjiksVZ ,ao layXu uD’kk i`”B 26@lh ds vuqlkj xzkfe.kksa dh ekax ij la’kks/ku dh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA vkns’k tkjh djsaA** 16. Pursuant to the order passed by the Minister for Revenue, the impugned notification altering the limits and boundaries of the new revenue village-Jairoop Nagar was issued. 17. Having gone through the proceedings taken by the State Government noticed as above, while issuing the impugned notification, this court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the State Government in altering the limits and boundaries of the revenue village is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. It is true that the State Government has absolute power to create the village and alter the limits and boundaries thereof but then, the power conferred upon the State Government has to be exercised in just and fair manner, taking into consideration the overall requirement and larger interest of the inhabitants of the area. The action of the State Government in succumbing to the demand of some of the villagers, ignoring the opinion expressed at different levels against the alteration of the limits, cannot be countenanced by this court. The action of the State Government in succumbing to the demand of some of the villagers, ignoring the opinion expressed at different levels against the alteration of the limits, cannot be countenanced by this court. The manner in which the order is passed by the Minister for Revenue, directing alteration of the limits of the revenue village, reflects that the proceedings were initiated with the priori conclusion to alter the limits of the revenue village, as proposed. The material on record clearly establishes that the alteration of the limits of the revenue village-Jairoop Nagar violates the norms laid down by the State Government for creation of new village, however, while directing alteration of the limits in defiance of the norms laid down, no reasons have been recorded and thus, the decision taken suffers from non application of mind and lacks the transparency required in decision making process at the ends of the State Government. 18. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this court, the impugned notification issued by the State Government altering the limits of the existing village-Jairoop Nagar and inclusion of a portion of the area thereof, in the village-Benan, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 19. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned notification dated 27.7.12 issued by the State Government, order dated 13.9.12 issued by the Additional District Collector, Jodhpur and order dated 14.9.12 issued by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that if necessary, in the larger interest of inhabitants of the area, the State Government shall be at liberty to take the decision afresh, regarding the alteration of the boundaries of the village-Jairoop Nagar, after following the procedure laid down, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.