Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 169 (RAJ)

LRs of Kalu v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-28

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 16.12.1986 passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board'), whereby while exercising powers under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act'), the allotment of land admeasuring 11 Bigha comprised in Khasra No.862 at Pali has been set aside and it has been directed that the land in question shall remain recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.10.1984 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA') has been rejected, order dated 18.02.1987, whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected and order dated 02.04.1987, whereby leave to file appeal against the orders dated 16.12.1986 and 18.02.1987 has been rejected. 2. The land admeasuring 21 Bigha 16 Biswa comprised in Khasra No.862 of Pali was recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta; at the recommendation of Tehsildar, Pali, the Sub Divisional Officer, Pali by order dated 15.07.1966 ordered for recording 11 Bigha land as cultivable changing its nature from Gair Mumkin Rasta and the same was then allotted to the petitioner by order dated 10.11.1966 and since then the petitioner was in possession of the land in question. It is claimed that pursuant to the allotment, the petitioner deposited fee of Rs. 5/- for grant of Sanad vide Annex.-2. The allotment was questioned and the Collector, Pali by his order dated 29.08.1970 (Annex.-3), noticed that though the petitioner is in service, however, he was a cultivator as well and does not have any land and, therefore, the allotment made to him be maintained. Even prior to that, proceedings under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Tenancy Act') appears to have been initiated and by order dated 21.06.1968 (Annex.-4), the proceedings were dropped on account of the Sanad and the rent receipts issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. The issue of allotment made to the petitioner was examined and the Additional Collector, Pali vide his communication dated 30.01.1979 (Annex.-4A) on an application made by Girdhari Singh etc. reported to the Collector - (i) that the allotment is governed by the Allotment Rules, 1957, no restrictions have been placed in the Rules for allotment except that allotment within 5 Kms. reported to the Collector - (i) that the allotment is governed by the Allotment Rules, 1957, no restrictions have been placed in the Rules for allotment except that allotment within 5 Kms. of Jaipur city has been prohibited and the allotment having taken place before Rules of 1970 came into force, there are no restrictions; (ii) the SDO has power to convert the land; (iii) the passerbys on the road will not have any inconvenience and (iv) that there was no restriction under the Rules of 1957 and the restrictions have come in Rules of 1970 only. The issue regarding allotment of the land in petitioner's favour despite he being in service was also justified. 4. The Collector by order dated 21.07.1975 (Annex.-5) informed the Tehsildar that the allotment has been upheld and further by order dated 20.04.1976, the Tehsildar required from the Patwari to report after recording the name of the petitioner. 5. Where after, a reference was made to the Board under Section 84 of the Act, which reference was rejected by the Board vide order dated 09.07.1980 (Annex.-7) holding that reference under Section 82 of the Act only was maintainable. Where after again, Misc. Revenue Proceedings No.40/1981 were initiated before the Additional Collector, Pali and the Additional Collector by his order dated 03.09.1982 (Annex.-8), came to the conclusion that qua the land in question twice orders have been passed on 05.08.1968 and 29.08.1970 and, therefore, res judicata would apply and the matter cannot be reopened. 6. Against the order dated 03.09.1982 (Annex.-8), though the State did not file appeal, one Mukan Chand filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Act and the RAA by its order dated 19.10.1984 (Annex.-9), came to the conclusion that the allotment is patently illegal, cannot stand and set aside the order of the Additional Collector and directed eviction of the petitioner and correction in entry in revenue record. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Board. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Board. The Board heard the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.10.1984 along with application under Section 9 of the Act filed by Mukan Chand, Pukhraj and Allabux and by its order dated 16.12.1986 (Annex.-10), came to the conclusion exercising powers under Section 9 of the Act, that the cancellation of allotment was justified else the land used by public, would lead to further litigation and, consequently, pass the order impugned as noticed hereinbefore. The review petitions filed by the petitioner were also rejected by order dated 18.02.1987 (Annex.-11) and the leave to file appeal to Division Bench of the Board was also rejected by order dated 02.04.1987 (Annex.-12). 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue regarding allotment made to the petitioner was examined twice over and it was repeatedly found in favour of the petitioner that the allotment was made within the four corners of the Rules, however, again the proceedings were initiated and were held in petitioner's favour; the State did not file any appeal and the respondent Mukan Chand, who had no locus standi filed an appeal before the RAA. In the first instance, the RAA should not have taken any cognizance of the appeal and besides the same the exercise of jurisdiction cancelling the allotment is wholly contrary to the material available on record. It was further submitted that the respondent Mukan Chand had no locus standi either to file appeal before the RAA or to file application under Section 9 of the Act invoking the power of superintendence of the Board as the locus indicated was that his own land was situated behind the land allotted to the petitioner and during pendency of the proceedings before the Board, he had already sold the land. It was further submitted that allotment was made way back in the year 1966 and it is nobody's case that there was any fraud/misrepresentation involved on part of the petitioner and, therefore, the exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act by the Board is also not justified. It was further submitted that the petitioner is in cultivatory possession of the land in question since 1966 and has developed the same. 9. It was further submitted that the petitioner is in cultivatory possession of the land in question since 1966 and has developed the same. 9. With reference to the map filed as Annex.-14, it was submitted that a look at the said map would reveal that the land allotted to the petitioner, does not in any manner effect the existing road and is not likely to effect the said road even in future as on the either side of the road, lot of vacant Government land is still available. Further submissions were made that there were three applicants before the Board in the application filed under Section 9 of the Act. While the respondent Mukan Chand has already sold his entire holding, legal representatives of Pukhraj have no objection against the petitioner's allotment and Allabux has chosen not to appear. Another submission was made that the respondents themselves have allotted land admeasuring 5 Bigha from the same land comprised in Khasra No.862 pursuant to its regularisation drive and have allotted the same to the encroachers, not only the land comprised in the said Khasra more land of Gair Mumkin Rasta has also been allotted by the respondents and, therefore, the entire plea sought to be raised by the respondents regarding the land of Gair Mumkin Rasta having been allotted to the petitioner from their own conduct has no basis and, therefore, the orders passed by the RAA and the Board deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the orders passed by the RAA and the Board. It was submitted that admittedly the land in question is part of Gair Mumkin Rasta and was not available for allotment under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1957 ('the Rules of 1957') and the Additional Collector has no power to convert the land of Gair Mumkin Rasta to cultivable land and, thereafter, allot the same to the petitioner. The allotment made was void ab initio and, therefore, there is no question of any res judicata as claimed by the petitioner or at all. The allotment made was void ab initio and, therefore, there is no question of any res judicata as claimed by the petitioner or at all. It is submitted that the RAA was justified in coming to the conclusion that the rejection of the proceedings by the Additional Collector vide Annex.-8 was at all justified and even if the order has been passed at the instance of Mukan Chand, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance in this regard. It was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 11. Reliance was placed on Jai Narain v. Board of Revenue : 1980 RRD 315 and provisions of the Rules of 1957. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 supported the orders passed by the RAA and the Board. It was submitted that the allotment made to the petitioner was against the Rules of 1957 since beginning and the respondent was, therefore, justified in taking proceedings as felt appropriate against the orders passed by the Additional Collector, which Authority while ignoring the express provisions of the Rules of 1957, chose to consistently hold in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were initiated before the Board. The Board was justified in exercising its powers under Section 9 of the Act and passed the order cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot defend the same. Besides the above, the appeal filed by petitioner against the order of RAA has also been rightly dismissed. 13. As regard to the locus standi, it was submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are not on record and besides the above irrespective of the allegations, it cannot be said that as the petitioner has transferred his land, the same would have any implication on the validity of the order passed by the Board. 14. Reliance was placed on Kajod v. Board of Revenue : 1989 RRD 203; Balkishan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2008(4) WLC (Raj) 268; Shivji Lal & Ors. v. Board of Revenue & Ors.: 2007(2) DNJ (Raj.) 898 and Murti Mandir Shri Niyamaji Laxmangarh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 119. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. v. Board of Revenue & Ors.: 2007(2) DNJ (Raj.) 898 and Murti Mandir Shri Niyamaji Laxmangarh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 119. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. It is not in dispute that the land admeasuring 21 Bigha 16 Biswa comprised in Khasra No. 862 at Pali was recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta. The Additional Collector, on the recommendation of Tehsildar, Pali by his order dated 15.07.1966, chose to change the nature of the land from Gair Mumkin Rasta to cultivable and ordered for allotment in favour of the petitioner by order dated 10.11.1966. Though the letter of allotment is not available on record, the then existing provisions, which pertained to allotment, were Rules of 1957. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1957 provided for lands not available for allotment under the Rules, which are as under:- "Rule 4. Land not available for allotment under these rules.- The following categories of lands shall not be available for allotment for agricultural purposes under these rules- [(i) Lands situated within municipal limits]; [(ii) Lands mentioned in the Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act; [(iii) Lands reserved for the Rajasthan Forests as constituted under Section 28 of the Rajasthan Forests Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act XIII of 1953); (iv) Lands recorded as ghair mumkin in the current settlement; and [(v) small banas adjoining or close to the abadi of a village.]" 17. The provision provided that lands situated within Municipal limits, lands mentioned in Section 16 of the Tenancy Act, lands reserved for the forests, lands recorded as Gair Mumkin and small Banas adjoining or close to the Abadi were not available for the allotment. Further Sub-clause (vi) of Section 16 of the Tenancy Act, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything in the Act or in any other law or enactment for the time being in force, Khatedari rights shall not accrue in land acquired or held for a public purpose or for a work of public utility. 18. Further Sub-clause (vi) of Section 16 of the Tenancy Act, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything in the Act or in any other law or enactment for the time being in force, Khatedari rights shall not accrue in land acquired or held for a public purpose or for a work of public utility. 18. It is, therefore, not in dispute that at the time when the allotment was sought and the land in question was sought to be converted, the same was not available for allotment under the Rules of 1957 as the same was within the prohibited category in terms of Sub-clause – (ii) as well as (iv) read with Section 16(vi) of the Tenancy Act. 19. However, the Additional Collector converted the land and made the allotment and the petitioner came in possession of the land in question. 20. However from the sequence of events as noticed hereinbefore, doubt and dispute persisted regarding the validity of allotment made to the petitioner and it appears that repeated attempts were made to question the same. Immediately, after allotment proceedings under Section 212 of the Tenancy Act were initiated, which were dropped on 21.06.1968 (Annex.-4). 21. Again on an application made by Girdhari Singh to the Collector, the Assistant Collector as noticed hereinbefore vide Annex.-4, justified the allotment by replying to all the objections. Regarding the relevant objection as to whether the land, which is in the vicinity of the PWD Road can be allotted, the following response was given by the Assistant Collector:- "(d) Whether land in the vicinity of a P.W.D. Road should be allotted :- At present (and in 1966) the road is not a P.W.D. Road. It is entirely an earthen road and hence allotment was possible. In any case as per the 1957 Rules, these restrictions do not apply. They came into force only in 1970." 22. A perusal of the response would indicate that the same was wholly misleading and against the provisions of the Rules of 1957 as it was reported that the road was not a PWD Road and was an earthen road and, hence the allotment was possible and that the restrictions has come only in Rules of 1970 and the said restriction was not there in Rules of 1957. 23. 23. Another attempt made by way of reference to the Board also failed as the reference was made under a wrong provision and instead of filing reference under correct provision, misc. proceedings were initiated by the Additional Collector himself and feeling himself bound by principles of res judicata, the proceedings were dropped on 03.09.1982 (Annex.-8). 24. Where after, as noticed the said order was challenged by Mukan Chand, when the RAA by its impugned order dated 19.10.1984 (Annex.-9), came to the following conclusion:- "(4) Perusal of the record shows that land Khasra number 862 measuring 10 biswas situated in Pali Chak No.1 was Ghair-mumkin Rasta. This land was not allotable by virtue of Section 16 of R.T. Act read in the context of Allotment Rules. Now the Collector in 1968 & 1970 could digest this irregularity is not known. Now that the Collector initiated action under Rule 14(4), it could not, under the above circumstances, be estopped by virtue of orders of 1968 & 1970, we feel the Addl. Collector dismissing the case on this account did not act legally. (5) In view of the above the allotment being patently illegal cannot stand. The order of the Additional Collector now under appeal is also setaside. The Additional Collector Pali is directed to eject Shri Kalu so of Sh. Shiv Lal Mali from land Khasra No. 862 Ghair Mumkin Rasta situated in Pali Chak No. 1 and make correction in entries in Revenue Record." 25. The order of the Additional Collector now under appeal is also setaside. The Additional Collector Pali is directed to eject Shri Kalu so of Sh. Shiv Lal Mali from land Khasra No. 862 Ghair Mumkin Rasta situated in Pali Chak No. 1 and make correction in entries in Revenue Record." 25. Against the above order when the petitioner approached the Board by filing appeal, the Board heard the matter along with pending application under Section 9 of the Act and came to the following conclusions:- ^^7- mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ekeys dh fLFkfr dks le>rs gq, esjh jk; esa /kkjk 9 jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 dk iz;ksx dj bl Hkw&vkoaVu dks fujLr fd;k tkuk iw.kZr;k mfpr gS vU;Fkk ,d o lkoZtfud mi;ksx esa vkus okyh Hkwfe ds ekeys esa O;FkZ dh eqdnesckth gksrh jgsxhA bl O;FkZ dh eqdnesckth esa vke turk dh dfBukbZ;ksa esa o`f) gksxh rFkk eqdupUn o dkyq i{kksa dh vkfFkZd gkfu gksxhA 8- fygktk eqdupUn i{k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZu&i= la[;k 9@81 vUrxZr /kkjk 9 lifBr /kkjk 83 jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 eqdupUn o vU; cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o dkyw dks Lohdkj dj dkyw iq= f'koyky ekyh i{k dks fd, x, Hkw&vkoaVu vkjkth [kljk uEcj 862 jdck X;kjg ch?kk [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa lfgr vxj izkIr gks x, gksa fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vt vkjkth [kljk uEcj 862 jdck 21 ch?kk 16 fcLok okds xzke ikyh pduEcj ,d rglhy o ftyk ikyh xSj eqefdu jkLrk ntZ jgsxkA vxj bl Hkwfe ij fdlh dk vfrdze.k gS rks mls fu;ekuqlkj gVk fn;k tkosA mijksDr fLFkfr esa dkyw i{k }kjk nk;j vihy la[;k 97@84@,y0vkj0@ikyh dkyw cuke eqdupUn o jktLFkku ljdkj dks [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA** 26. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Narain (supra), while considering the provisions of Rule 4(iv) of the Rules of 1957, came to the conclusion that SDO has no jurisdiction to convert Gair Mumkin Talai into cultivable land and allot the same. It was, inter alia, held as under:- "5. As the land was 'Gair Mumkin Talai' and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake, had no jurisdiction to convert the same into cultivable 'Barani' land, the Board of Revenue is right in holding that the land was not open for allotment to the petitioner or to any other person. It was, inter alia, held as under:- "5. As the land was 'Gair Mumkin Talai' and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake, had no jurisdiction to convert the same into cultivable 'Barani' land, the Board of Revenue is right in holding that the land was not open for allotment to the petitioner or to any other person. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 provides that land recorded as 'Gair Mumkin' in the current settlement, was not available for allotment for agricultural purposes, under the said Rules. The petitioner claims that the allotment of land has been made by the Tehsildar in consultation with the Land Allotment Advisory Committee under Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules. As we have already pointed out above, in the current settlement the land was entered in the record of rights as 'Gair Mumkin' and as such if the Sub-Divisional Officer could not convert the same into "Barani", the land in dispute could not have been allotted to the petitioner or to any other person. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Sections 131, 132 and 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for making the submission that the Sub-Divisional Officer was empowered to convert the land, entered in the current settlement, as 'Gair Mumkin Talai' into 'Barani'. We have examined the provisions referred to by the learned counsel. Section 131 of the Land Revenue Act authorises the Land Records Officer, after the survey and record operations are over, to maintain the map and the field book and he is also authorised to annually or at such longer intervals, as may be prescribed, to record the changes in the boundaries of each village or portion of a village, estate or field and to correct any errors, which are shown to have been made in the map or field book, in accordance with the rules made for the purpose by the State Government. This section envisages merely the recording of changes and making correction of errors, which may have crept in the map or field book, but it does not given any authority to convert non-cultivable 'Gair Mumkin' land into cultivable 'Barani' or 'Chahi' land after the survey and record operations are over. This section envisages merely the recording of changes and making correction of errors, which may have crept in the map or field book, but it does not given any authority to convert non-cultivable 'Gair Mumkin' land into cultivable 'Barani' or 'Chahi' land after the survey and record operations are over. Section 132 merely authorises the Land Records Officer to maintain record of rights and to prepare a set or an amended set thereof, which are called annual registers. It also authorises the Land Records Officer to record in the annual registers all changes that may take place and all transactions that may affect the rights or interests recorded in the annual registers. Thus, the changes affecting the rights and interest of land-holders may be recorded by the Land Records Officer in the annual registers, by virtue of the power given to him under Section 132. So far as the provisions of Section 136 are concerned, they provide for the decision of disputes relating to correction of entries in accordance with the provisions of Sections 123, 124 and 125. Under Section 123, the Land Records Officer has been empowered to decide the disputes relating to the class or tenure of any tenant. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any dispute relating to the class or tenure of any tenant which the Sub-Divisional Officer was called upon to decide. As we have already observed above, it is an admitted fact that the land in question belonged to the State Government and was recorded in the current registers as 'Gair Mumkin Talai'. Sections 124 and 125 are admittedly not applicable to the matter in dispute. As such we are of the view that the Board of Revenue was right in holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not empowered to convert the land recorded in the record of rights as 'Gair Mumkin Talai' into 'Barani', either under Section 131 or 132 or 136 read with Section 123. The Board has relied upon the decision of its larger bench in Durga Prasad's case, wherein it was held that the Sub-Divisional Officer, on whom the powers of the Land Records Officer after the close of the survey and record operations, was conferred, was not empowered to convert any 'Gair Mumkin' land into cultivable land. The Board has relied upon the decision of its larger bench in Durga Prasad's case, wherein it was held that the Sub-Divisional Officer, on whom the powers of the Land Records Officer after the close of the survey and record operations, was conferred, was not empowered to convert any 'Gair Mumkin' land into cultivable land. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by the larger bench of the Board of Revenue in Durga Prasad's case in this respect." 27. Similarly in the case of Kajod (supra), the Division Bench relying on the judgment of Jai Narain (supra), again came to the conclusion that allotment in petitioner's favour could be sustained only if the prior conversion was in accordance with law and upheld the order set aside by the Board. It was, inter alia, observed as under:- "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the challenge made by member of the public was to the conversion of the land in the above manner and not thereafter to its allotment in favour of the petitioner. In our opinion, this comention cannot be accepted. The allotment in petitioner's favour could be sustained only if the prior conversion of the land was in accordance with law. Admittedly, the conversion of the land from "Gair Mumkin" to "Barani" was contrary to the statutory provisions and therefore, the allotment thereafter, to the petitioner was clearly illegal. In such a situation, there is no occasion to exercise the extra-ordinary and discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution in petitioner's favour on mere technicality, which ultimately on close scrutiny has no substance. This writ petition, therefore, must fail." 28. In Shivji Lal (supra), it was held that the land regarding which Khatedari rights cannot be conferred under Section 16 of the Tenancy Act cannot be allotted. 29. So far as the judgment cited by the counsel for the respondents regarding allotment made in favour of the employees of Municipal Board is concerned, the same has apparently no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, neither the RAA nor the Board have given any finding on the said aspect. 30. 29. So far as the judgment cited by the counsel for the respondents regarding allotment made in favour of the employees of Municipal Board is concerned, the same has apparently no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, neither the RAA nor the Board have given any finding on the said aspect. 30. In view of the above law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Narain (supra) and Kajod (supra), it is apparent that the Additional Collector had no power to order conversion of land from Gair Mumkin Rasta to cultivable and, consequently the allotment made to the petitioner could not have taken place and was rightly held as void ab initio by the RAA and the Board by their impugned orders. 31. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the fact that subsequent to the allotment made to the petitioner and despite taking stand that the land of Gair Mumkin Rasta cannot be allotted, the respondents themselves allotted the land in the same Khasra along with other Khasras, which is Gair Mumkin in favour of the encroachers and, therefore, the allotment be not disturbed, is also baseless. So far as allotments made to the encroachers is concerned, a look at the response made by the District Collector, Pali pursuant to the directions issued by this Court reveals that the conversion and allotment was made based on the directions for regularisation of Kachhi Basti. 32. Besides the fact that the said aspect cannot be equated with the allotment of land under the Rules of 1957 to the petitioner, it is well settled that provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for the purpose of seeking parity with an order, which is against the provisions of the Act/Rules. 33. Further submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the nature of land with reference to Annex.- 14 map that the allotment is not going to effect the existing road and its further expansion, is also not of much consequence as the issue has to be examined in context of the power to make allotment under the Rules of 1957 and not as to whether the allotment made is in consonance with the land and its situation and whether the same is likely to effect the existing or its future expansion. 34. So far as the issue pertaining to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Board under Section 9 of the Act at the instance of private respondent is concerned, Section 9 of the Act provides for general superintendence of subordinate revenue courts, which reads as under:- "Sec. 9. General Superintendence of Subordinate Revenue Courts.- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the general superintendence and control over all revenue Courts and over all revenue officers shall be vested in, and all such Courts and officers shall be subordinate to the Board." 35. The prima facie restriction of exercise of general superintendence under Section 9 of the Act appears to be that the said power is to be exercised subject to the other provisions of the Act and the same is not restricted based on as to whether the State invokes the jurisdiction or the private party approaches the Board for invoking its jurisdiction, as once the matter comes before the Board and the Board is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the power needs to be exercised, it is not restricted based on as to who has invoked the powers. 36. A Division Bench of this Court in Raja Ram v. Board of Revenue: 1995 RRD 62, considering the scope of powers under Section 9 of the Act, held as under:- "6. Seeing the facts of the instant case, it was on of the fitest case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act in the interest of justice because the order of cancellation of allotment was passed on a ground which was held to be beyond the purview of law as the provision of law that an allotment can be made only to a person, who is a bona fide resident of State of Rajasthan on 1.4.55 was held to be bad and was struck down by the High Court. 7. It was then argued that petitioner is a third person and his rights have come into being and, therefore, there should have been no interference by the Board under Section 9 of the Act. 8. We are not impressed by this argument as the non-petitioner No.5 Hari Singh, in whose favour allotment of land was made initially, has throughout been fighting the litigation and the matter was sub-judice. 8. We are not impressed by this argument as the non-petitioner No.5 Hari Singh, in whose favour allotment of land was made initially, has throughout been fighting the litigation and the matter was sub-judice. Therefore, after the declaration that the provision regarding bona fide resident of Rajasthan on 1.4.55 is bad, the non-petitioner No.5 was entitled to get the allotment back in his favour, and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue vide order dated 28.7.1982 has rightly set aside the order dated 20.7.76 cancelling the allotment." 37. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Board was powerless in setting aside the wrong allotment, which was made in favour of the petitioner dehors the provisions of the Rules of 1957. The fact that the petitioner has been in possession of the land in question since 1966 and has developed the same over a period of time, also cannot be of much consequence as since the year 1966, apparently when the allotment was made to the petitioner, there has been some litigation or the other which the petitioner has been facing and various orders from time to time have been made and presently despite the orders passed by the Board under the terms of interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is in possession. 38. The last issue raised by learned counsel regarding the fact that as Mukan Chand has allegedly already sold land in question is also of no consequence. It is submitted that Mukan Chand, who had filed the appeal before the RAA and the application under Section 9 of the Act before the Board, had allegedly sold his land before order was passed by the Board and, therefore, the matter at his instance could not have been examined. The said submission has been noticed only to be rejected, as already noticed for exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act by the Board and in the circumstances, in which, the power has been exercised, it is apparent that the Board did not require presence of even Mukan Chand and, therefore, the fact that he had transferred the land during the pendency of the proceedings would have no implication. 39. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.