Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1900 (RAJ)

Ramkaran v. State of Rajasthan

2015-11-17

AJIT SINGH, ANSHUMAN SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has assailed order of the Single Bench dated 26.8.2015 whereby writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 2 challenging the order dated 6.9.2000 passed by the District Collector, cancelling the allotment of land as well as orders dated 27.2.2001 and 23.6.2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue respectively, affirming the decision of the District Collector was allowed and the aforementioned impugned orders were set aside. 2. The respondent No. 2 is stated to be a landless person who had applied for regularisation of allotment of 7 bighas of land situated in village Bagdi, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Agriculture Land) Rules, 1970 (herein after referred to as "the Rules of 1970"). Vide order dated 5.9.1973 the Tehsildar recommended case of the respondent No. 2 for regularisation and on his recommendation to the Allotment Committee, the land was allotted to the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15.11.1975. 3. The appellant filed an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 on 22.9.1999 seeking cancellation of order dated 15.11.1975 whereby the land allotted to the respondent was regularized. The Collector vide order dated 6.9.2000 allowed his application and cancelled the allotment of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue respectively which were also dismissed by the aforementioned orders. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the land was recorded in the revenue records as land of'nadi' (pond) and therefore, it could not lie regularised in favour of the respondent No. 2. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Abdul Rehman v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2004(4) WL.C (Raj.) 435. He further submitted that as allotment had been fraudulently made in favour of the respondent No. 2, hence, the principle of delay and laches would not be applicable as the benefit obtained by fraud could be challenged at any time. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and with his assistance perused the record. 6. He further submitted that as allotment had been fraudulently made in favour of the respondent No. 2, hence, the principle of delay and laches would not be applicable as the benefit obtained by fraud could be challenged at any time. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and with his assistance perused the record. 6. We do not find any merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the land which was allotted to respondent No. 2 falls in 'nadi' as it has come on record that the Tehsildar and the Land Allotment Advisory Committee had concluded that on ground there was no 'nadi' and it was plain land which was being cultivated by the respondent No. 2. The Tehsildar had inspected the site and this observation had been duly reflected in his report dated 5.9.1973 that there was neither any 'nadi' nor pond on the land in question. 7. There is no dispute about the directions issued by this Court in the case of Abdul Rehman v. State of Rajasthan (supra) that the Government should restore catchment areas to original shape and all land which is shown as drainage, channels as on 15.8.1947 should be declared Government land and should be restored as such. However, as already noticed herein above, there is no evidence to indicate that the land which was allotted to the respondent comprised 'nadi'. 8. It is evident that the regularisation of allotment of the land to the respondent No. 2 was made way back on 15.11.1975 but the appellant has challenged the same only on 22.9.1999 which is 24 years after the allotment had been made to the respondent No. 2. It remains a mystery as to why the appellant waited for such a long time to challenge the allotment to the respondent No. 2. In case he was really concerned about the alleged illegality or fraud, it was incumbent upon the appellant to promptly approach the concerned authority. 9. It is also well settled that in absence of any period of limitation, the statutory authority has to exercise its powers within reasonable time. In case he was really concerned about the alleged illegality or fraud, it was incumbent upon the appellant to promptly approach the concerned authority. 9. It is also well settled that in absence of any period of limitation, the statutory authority has to exercise its powers within reasonable time. Reference can be made to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another v. D. Narsingh Rao and others, (2015) 3 SCC 695 wherein it has been held that even in the absence of any specified period of limitation it does not imply that the authority can exercise its powers at any time. The power has to be exercised within reasonable period, which would depend on the nature of statute, rights and liabilities and other relevant factors. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if fraud is alleged in obtaining rights over the land, the power to interfere therewith must not be exercised after unreasonable period. 10. It is also borne out from the perusal of recommendation of the Tehsildar dated 5.9.1973 that the respondent No. 2 was a landless person and was in cultivatory possession of the land for the last 7-8 years and he was regularly paying charges for such cultivation. Respondent is, thus, tilling the land for over three decades and would have spent considerable amount on making improvement on the land. Therefore, it would be highly unjust and inequitable to oust him from the land at this stage. Reference can also be made to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue and others, AIR 1994 SC 1128 wherein even though the allotment had been made to applicant therein who was stated to be minor at that time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that he allottee should not be dispossessed as he had been cultivating the land for about two decades. The judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishore v. State of U.P. reported as (2012) 11 SCC 51 , wherein it was held that the respondent No. 4 therein who had purchased land in auction and had been in possession for over two decades should be disturbed at a belated stage.We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the order cancelling allotment made to the respondent No. 2 after a period of over two decades would be unsustainable. 11. Consequently, there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned Single judge setting aside the impugned orders cancelling the allotment to the respondent No. 2. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. *******