Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 419 (RAJ)

RIICO v. LRs of Prem Kishan

2016-03-16

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, JAISHREE THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : G.K. Vyas, J. In this special appeal the appellant Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short RICCO) is assailing the validity of the order dated 4.5.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.3618/2011 (RIICO v. LRs of Tikam Das) by which the learned Single Judge affirmed the finding given by the court below in civil original suit no.77/89 (68/86) whereby the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no.1 for the land of Khasra No.740-41/67 (1031/730) ad measuring 25 bighas 8 biswas. The appellant RIICO aggrieved with the order dated 30.7.2001 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur but the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant vide judgment dated 20.10.2004. 2. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur and judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur dated 20.10.2004, a second appeal was preferred by the appellant before Board of Revenue, Ajmer, but the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue was of different view, therefore, vide order dated 16.9.2006 the matter was referred to the 3rd member of the Board of Revenue. Finally, the matter was heard by the larger bench and affirmed the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur dated 20.10.2004 vide order dated 30.8.2010. 3. Against all the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and larger bench of the Board of Revenue, the appellant RIICO has preferred the writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 4.5.2015 and upheld the concurrent finding given by the all the all the revenue courts below. 4. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant RIICO after delay of 139 days along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. While hearing upon the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have also heard the arguments upon the merit of that of the case. Admittedly, the appellant RIICO is challenging validity of the concurrent finding of all subordinate revenue courts as well as the learned Single Judge in this special appeal. 5. While hearing upon the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have also heard the arguments upon the merit of that of the case. Admittedly, the appellant RIICO is challenging validity of the concurrent finding of all subordinate revenue courts as well as the learned Single Judge in this special appeal. As per the finding of the courts below the land in question was in cultivator possession of the respondents before coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The SDO granted Khatedari rights to one Tikam Das on 29.11.1956 under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and pursuant thereto a Patta was issued in favour of Tikam Das on 18.1.1957. The learned Single Judge observed that as per the record, the order dated 9.6.1970 and subsequent order of Tehsildar, Jodhpur dated 24.12.1970 cancelling the Patta of the land in question issued in favour of respondents was passed without following the due process of law and for this reason, the orders dated 26.4.1974 and 18.3.1989 transferring the land in favour of RIICO and UIT were reviewed and cancelled by the collector vide order dated 21.9.2004. The learned Single Judge gave finding that order dated 28.5.1970 cancelling the patta of respondents was based upon the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 13.8.1957, which pertains to cancellation of patta issued respect of pasture land whereas land in question was never reserved as pasture land. The revenue courts after considering the material on record in its entirety and objectivity gave categorical finding that Khatedari rights conferred upon the respondent as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act was in consonance with law. The learned Single Judge while considering above aspect of the matter held that the land belonging to Khatedar tenant could not have been declared Sivay Chak by way of administrative order, which was apparently based on the basis of erroneous facts solely on the ground that RIICO was put into possession on the land in question on the strength of an allotment order issued acting without jurisdiction, which now stand set aside in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, no right is created in favour of the RIICO over the land in question. 7. 6. In view of the above, no right is created in favour of the RIICO over the land in question. 7. In our opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in upholding the concurrent finding given by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and Board of Revenue, Ajmer upon the issue in question. 8. Therefore, this special appeal is hereby dismissed on merit as well as on the delay of 139 days.