Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 425 (RAJ)

Rishiraj Rathore v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer

2016-03-16

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : This order shall dispose of above-noted four special appeals, which are arising from common order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. In these cases, the learned Single Judge has upheld the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. By the said order, the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the District Collector, Ajmer and remanded the matter to the Collector, Ajmer with a direction to carry out a detailed enquiry on the allotment of agricultural land to the respondents and then take a decision after giving due opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties and pass a fresh order on the application for cancellation of allotment moved by the appellants under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue(Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that without any justification, the Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by the Collector cancelling the allotment in favour of the respondents and remanded the matter, particularly when it was established before the Collector, Ajmer that wrong allotment was made in favour of the respondents. According to the learned counsel, the land in question is Gair Mumkin Nadi and under the Rules, it could not have been allotted to anybody. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Collector while cancelling the allotment in favour of the respondents, has not properly appreciated certain facts, which were pleaded before him, particularly to the effect that land in question is not Gair Mumkin land and the same has been recorded in the revenue record as Siwai Chak. It was also pleaded before the Collector that the said land was validly allotted by the competent authority in favour of the respondents. While ignoring all those facts, the Collector has illegally passed the order cancelling the allotment and the said order was rightly set aside by the Board of Revenue and the matter was remanded to the Collector, Ajmer to decide the matter afresh after considering all the material and to pass an order after giving full opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Learned counsel further argued that after the remand, both the parties will have full opportunity to plead their case and, therefore, no prejudice is going to be caused to the appellants and the appeals filed by the appellants be dismissed. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in these intra-Court appeals. Learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects and has rightly upheld the order of the Board of Revenue because we are also of the opinion that the learned Collector without properly considering the stand taken by both the parties and the documents available on record and without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties to plead their case, has cancelled the order of allotment in favour of the respondents. All these aspects are to be looked into by the Collector while deciding the matter afresh. 6. Hence, in our opinion the Board of Revenue was fully justified in setting aside the order of the Collector and remanding the matter. We are of the view that after remand, both the parties will have equal and fair opportunity to plead and project their case after leading evidence. Thus, in our opinion, no interference is required in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. No merit. Dismissed. 8. A copy of the order be placed in the connected files.