Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 979 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ram Pratap

2015-05-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against Judgment dated 13.1.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Board), whereby, the revision filed by the respondent No. 1-Ram Pratap under Section 23(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area), Rules, 1975 ('the Rules') has been accepted and the Order dated 27.5.2002 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar ('Collector') has been set aside. 2. The respondent No. 1-Ram Pratap was allotted command land ad measuring 17 Bigha by the allotting authority by Order dated 25.10.1975; the respondent No. 1 filed application to get the land comprised in Murabba No. 140/8 under the small patch category, which was allotted to him by Order dated 7.1.1991; whereafter, the allotment order was also issued on the same date; the competent authority filed an application under Rule 22(3) of the Rules before the Collector questioning the allotment dated 7.1.1991 on the ground that the land in question did not fall within the definition of small patch; notices were issued to the respondent No. 1 and the Collector by his Order dated 27.5.2002 cancelled the allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 1. 3. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 filed Revision Petition before the Board and the Board allowed the Revision Petition and quashed the Order dated 17.5.2002 passed by the Collector on coming to the conclusion that the land in ration falls within the definition of small patch category and the Collector interpreted the issue involved in the matter. 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Board was lot justified in setting aside the order passed by the Collector, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to allotment of the land in question under the 11 patch category; it is further submitted that the Board did not consider the applicable provisions and as the applicable provisions were violated while allotting the land in question, the order passed by the Collector was not liable to to interfered with by the Board and, as such, the order passed by the Board requires interference. 5. 5. A look at the application (Annexure 3) filed by the Competent Authority before the District Collector reveals that the only ground raised was that the land in question did not fall within the definition of small patch and, therefore, the allotment could not have been made; the case of the petitioners was that the land comprised in Murabba No. 140/8 was 7 Bigha and as the same was more than 5 Bigha, the same did not fall within the definition of small patch and even if 2 Bigha land has been allotted to the respondent No. 1, the same was contrary to die provisions of the Rules. 6. The Collector by his Order dated 27.5.2002 came to the conclusion that (hough 4 Bigha land in Muraba No. 140/8 was in possession of illegal Abadi, the land cannot be bifurcated on the said basis and, consequently, set aside the allotment. 7. 6. The Collector by his Order dated 27.5.2002 came to the conclusion that (hough 4 Bigha land in Muraba No. 140/8 was in possession of illegal Abadi, the land cannot be bifurcated on the said basis and, consequently, set aside the allotment. 7. However, the Board after considering the entire record and facts of the case recorded the following finding:- " 7- vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 27&05&2002 ds voyksdu ls tkfgj gS fd eqjCck uEcj 140@8 esa vo'ks"k 7 ch?kk Hkwfe dks vk/kkj cuk dj ftyk dysDVj }kjk ;g fu"d"kkZdu fd;k x;k gS fd 7 ch?kk dk Hkw[k.M y?kq&iV~Vh dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gS] vr% mDr 7 ch?kk esa ls 2 ch?kk Hkwfe dk y?kq&iV~Vh ds :i esa vkoaVu fd;k tkuk xyr Fkk] tks fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA ftyk dysDVj }kjk iVokjh gYdk@rglhynkj dh ftl fjiksVZ fnukad 01&01&1991 dks vk/kkj cuk;k x;k gS] og fjiksZV mi[k.M vf/kdkjh jk;flaguxj dh vkoaVu i=koyh esa layXu gS] ftldk eSaus voyksdu fd;k gSA mDr fjiksVZ vuqlkj eqjCck la[;k 140@8 esa 15 ch?kk 8 fcLok Hkwfe jkeizrki izkFkhZ dks vkoafVr gS] 1 ch?kk 16 fcLok xSjeqefdu tksgM+ gS] fdyk uEcj 1 ls 4 dh 4 ch?kk vkSj fdyk uEcj 14 o 18 dh 2 ch?kk Hkwfe jdck jkt gS] fdUrq fdyk uEcj 1 ls 4 dh 4 ch?kk Hkwfe ij voS/k vkcknh clh gqbZ gS bl izdkj Li"V gS fd fdyk uEcj 1 ls 4 dh 4 ch?kk Hkwfe vkoaVu gsrq miyC/k gh ugha Fkh dsoy 2 ch?kk Hkwfe gh fdyk uEcj 14 o 18 esa vkoaVu gsrq miyC/k FkhA blds vykok ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd fdyk uEcj 1 ls 4 dh 4 ch?kk vkSj fdyk uEcj 14 o 18 dh 2 ch?kk Hkwfe ,d lkFk miyC/k ugha gS vfirq vyx vyx VqdM+ksa esa miyC/k gSA y?kq&iV~Vh dh Js.kh fu/kkZj.k gsrq vyx vyx VqdM+ksa eas miyC/k Hkwfe dks feyk dj ns[kuk O;kokgfjd ugha gS] vfirq ,d lkFk ,d Hkw[k.M ds :i esa miyC/k Hkwfe dh ek=k dks gh y?kq&iV~Vh ds fu/kkZj.k gsrq ns[kk tkuk pkfg;s FkkA 8- mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij esjk fu"d"kZ gS fd pwafd gLrxr izdj.k esa eqjCck uEcj 140@8 dh vo'ks"k 7 ch?kk Hkwfe esa ls tksgM+ rFkk vkkcknh dh Hkwfe vkoaVu gsrq miyC/k ugha Fkh vkSj dsoy fdyk uEcj 14 o 18 dh 2 ch?kk Hkwfe gh vkoaVu gsrq miyC/k Fkh rFkk blds vykok fdyk uEcj 1 ls 4 dh ch?kk vkSj fdyk uEcj 14 o 18 dh 2 ch?kk Hkwfe vyx vyx Hkw[k.M ds :i esa Fkh] vr% fdyk uEcj 14 o 18 dh 2 ch?kk Hkwfe dks y?kq&iV~Vh ds :i esa vkoaVu fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fnukad 07&01&1991 esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugha fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fnukad 07&01&1991 esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugha FkhA ftyk dysDVj Jhxaxkuxj }kjk mDr vkoaVu dks fujLr djds fof/kd =qfV dkfjr dh gSA vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 27&05&2002 dks fujLruh; gSA " 8. It would be noticed that the Board recorded the finding of fact that only 2 Bigha land was available for allotment and the same fall within the definition of small patch; learned Counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out anything from the record so as to vitiate the finding recorded by the Board. 9. So far as the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners regarding alleged violation of the provisions of Rules is concerned, it would be noticed that no such plea was raised either before the Collector and/or before the Board by the State and the State cannot be permitted to raise the issue for the first time in Writ jurisdiction without there being any factual foundation regarding violation of the provisions. 10. In view of the above discussion, the judgment passed by the Board does not call for any interference. There is no substance in the Writ Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******