Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1392 (RAJ)

Mangi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-24

GOVIND MATHUR, JAISHREE THAKUR

body2015
Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4749/2007. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that a piece of land measuring 0.44 hectares situated in Khasra No.1039 at Village Nadol was allotted to the respondent Vishva Bharti Shiksha Samiti as per the provisions of the 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. The present appellant being aggrieved by the order of allotment preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali as per the provisions of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956') on the count 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 is illegal. It was also contended 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, thus, the allotment made is incomplete and taking advantage thereof, the Patwari has demarcated the alloted land in arbitrary manner. The demarcation made has adversely affected the right of way, which was already used by the appellants. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority by the judgment dated 29.01.2002 allowed the appeal in part by directing the authority competent to demarcate the land alloted to the respondent Vishva Bharti Shiksha Samiti while leaving 25 feet wide approach road in west side of the appellants' land within Khasra No.1035/1. 3. To question correctness of the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the respondent Vishva Bharti Shiksha Samiti preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and that came to be accepted by the judgment dated 11.11.2007. Learned Board of Revenue arrived at the conclusion that the Revenue Appellate Authority acted beyond the jurisdiction vested with it by providing way to the present appellants. The Board also observed that an alternative way is also available to the present appellants in eastern side of his agriculture plot. 4. Learned Board of Revenue arrived at the conclusion that the Revenue Appellate Authority acted beyond the jurisdiction vested with it by providing way to the present appellants. The Board also observed that an alternative way is also available to the present appellants in eastern side of his agriculture plot. 4. The writ petition giving challenge to the order passed by the Board of Revenue has been dismissed by learned Single bench by the judgment impugned by holding that the order impugned 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. 5. Before us, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the Revenue Appellate Authority, as a matter of fact, directed the competent Revenue Officers only to demarcate the land for allotment and no right of way has been settled. 6. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. From perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, it is apparent that as a matter of fact, in the name of demarcation, a way of the width of 25 feet has been allotted to the present applicant and that was not open for the Revenue Appellate Authority while exercising powers under Section 75 of the Act of 1956. No error, as such, has been committed by the Board of Revenue while accepting the appeal preferred by the respondent Vishva Bharti Shiksha Samiti. It is also relevant to mention that learned Single bench while dismissing the writ petition also noticed that a Gair Mumkin way passing through Khasra No.1734 is already available to the appellants and therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority could not have created a new way for the appellants passing through Khasra No.1039. 7. Having considered the facts noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Bench rightly refused to interfere in the matter while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appeal, thus, is bereft of merit. Hence, dismissed.