Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1687 (RAJ)

Budha v. Jagdish Singh (Since Deceased)

2017-07-28

INDERJEET SINGH, K.S.JHAVERI

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the original petitioner and quashed the order of the Board of Revenue and confirmed the order of Revenue Appellate Authority. 2. This matter has a chequered history. The land was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 22.6.1992 but the main allegation which was levelled against the cancellation of allotment was that under the Rule 13 of the Agriculture Land Allotment Rules, 1970, the quorum of the allotment committee was not complete. 3. Counsel for the appellant contended that inspite of findings given by the competent authority that quorum was complete as administrator was appointed under the Circular of the Government dated 14.5.1992, the Revenue Appellate Authority and learned Single Judge has committed serious error in setting aside the order of Board of Revenue. 4. We have gone through the order of the Board of Revenue, Appellate Authority and learned Single Judge. 5. While considering the case of the petitioner learned Single Judge observed as under:- "I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. For the purpose of judging as to whether allotment of the land was made in accordance with Rules, 1970 or not, it is necessary to refer to Rule 13 and Rule 13(3-A) of the Rules which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "13. Allotment to be in consultation with Advisory Committee (1) All allotment shall be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer in consultation with an Advisory Committee consisting of- (i) the member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly in whose constituency the land is situated; (ii) the pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction; (iii) the Sarpanch of the Panchayat having jurisdiction; (iv) the Vikas Adhlkart of the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction; (v) The Tehsildar of the tehsil having jurisdiction; (vi) a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to be nominated by the Panchayat Samiti from amongst its members, and (vii) a person to be nominated by the State Government in areas in which such nomination is considered necessary in public interest. (3-A) The quorum for constituting the meeting of Advisory Committee shall be three members of whom one shall be from clause (I), (ii) or (iii) of Sub-rule (1), provided that if a meeting of the Advisory Committee is adjourned for the want of quorum, the quorum for the adjourned meeting shall be two members of whom one shall be from clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of sub-rule (1)." The perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals that all the allotments shall be made in consultation with the Advisory Committee and constitution of the said Committee shows that apart from Vikas Adhikari, Tehsildar, person belonging to SC/ST nominated by the Panchayat Samiti and a person nominated by the State Government, elected members like the Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan and Sarpanch are also the members of the Committee and as per rule 13(3-A), quorum of the Advisory Committee should be at least of three members, out of whom one should be from and amongst mentioned in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13. In view of the aforesaid rule, it becomes clear that for completion of quorum, either the Member of the Legislative Assembly, or a Pradhan or a Sarpanch has to be in the committee. However, in the present matter, it is an admitted fact that none of them were the members of the Committee, because the Committee was consisting of Tehsildar, Vikas Adhikari and the Administrator. The Board of Revenue has earlier accepted the appeal of the petitioner, after taking note of the rules. However, impugned order has been passed in review, mainly after relying the Circular dated 14.05.1992. Perusal of the Circular dated 14.05.2002 shows that in reference to Rule 13 of the Rules of 1970, Government issued an order to the effect that in those Gram Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis as well, the Administrators are working, there the constitution of the Advisory Committee under the rule should be considered to have been completed, if the Administrator is permitted to participate in the Committee. Minute examination of the Circular shows that though the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat of the Panchayat Samiti is permitted to be a part of the Advisory Committee, but, then, the circular further provides that with inclusion of the Administrator of Gram Panchayat, the membership of the Advisory Committee becomes of four members, out of which, one of the member is the Member of the Legislative Assembly, but, then, taking note of certain contingencies of the absence of the Member of Legislative Assembly, it was given out that presence of three other members should be treated as completion of quorum. The aforesaid circular, if permitted to stand and the constitution of the Advisory Committee is allowed to be made in absence of any of the members as provided under Rule 13(i), (ii) and (iii), then, it becomes contrary to the statutory provisions and, in fact, no statutory provisions can be supplemented by an administrative order or a circular and, if any such circular is issued, contrary to the statutory provisions, then, same cannot be looked into, because it is settled law that the administrative circular can supplement the statutory provisions, but cannot supplant the same. Perusal of the circular reveals that statutory provisions of Rule 13 are supplemented by the government in illegal manner and the said circular dated 14.05.1992 cannot be looked into, particularly to statutory provisions, because as per Rule 13(3-A) of the Rules of 1970, when specific quorum is provided, then contrary to the said rule, no other quorum can be permitted by an administrative order. The Board of Revenue accepted the review petition, only after relying the circular dated 14.05.1992 which otherwise was not permissible. In fact, acceptance of allotment pursuant to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee not constituted as per Rule 13 of the Rule of 1970 would mean perpetuation of illegality by Court of Law. Rule 13(1) or (3-A) nowhere provides that in absence of a Sarpanch or Pradhan, the Administrator could participate in the meeting or the Government can nominate or pass an order to the effect that in absence of a Sarpanch and Pradhan, Administrator can be a member of the Advisory Committee. Rule 13(1) or (3-A) nowhere provides that in absence of a Sarpanch or Pradhan, the Administrator could participate in the meeting or the Government can nominate or pass an order to the effect that in absence of a Sarpanch and Pradhan, Administrator can be a member of the Advisory Committee. In absence of any such provision, the circular issued by the Government cannot be looked into, more so, when Rule of 1970 does not provide any provision to the effect that, in case of any difficulty regarding interpretation of rules, the Government can pass an appropriate order. Hence, taking note of the facts mentioned above, it cannot be said that the allotment made in favour of the non-petitioner was not made by a properly constituted committee. In view of the above conclusions, it is not required to look into other aspect of the matter, that is whether allotment was sought by the non-petitioner, being the Sarpanch or being the influential person." 6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in confirming the order of Revenue Appellate Authority. 6.1 However, it is made clear that the case of the petitioner will now be reconsidered by the authority. 6.2 It will be open for the authority to consider the case of both the parties and grant land in favour of the persons who are eligible today under the relevant scheme. 6.3 However, it is made clear that till allotment is made by the competent authority, possession of the appellant will not be disturbed. 6.4 The appeal stands disposed of.