Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 131 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SOHAN LAL

2018-01-09

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. 1. In this special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan after delay of 109 days, the judgment dated 31.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 3104/1997 is under challenged. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents-petitioners Sohan Lal and others preferred the writ petition before this court to challenge the order dated 1.4.1997 (Annex.20) passed by the State Government and notices dated 29.5.1991 (Annex.16) and 20.12.1995 issued by the State Government and prayed for quashing the proceedings pending pursuant to the notices. 3. As per the facts of the case, the respondents-petitioners owned certain pieces of land in various chaks in undivided districts Sri Ganganagar. They were Khatedar-tenants of the land falling in the said chaks, therefore, during settlement operation, Khatedar surrendered their hole land in exchange of other lands. Under the orders of the competent authority, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar cancelled the exchange granted by the competent authority by his order dated 14.10.1977 and 16.10.1977. The aforesaid orders were challenged by the respondents-petitioners by way of filing separate writ petitions and those writ petitions were allowed vide order dated 12.7.1978 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The Collector, again issued notices on 2.8.1978 proposing to cancel the Khatedari rights exchanged land granted to the respondents-petitioners. Those notices were challenged by way of filing revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the learned Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 9.5.1984 allowed the revision petition. Thereafter, the State Government preferred review petition against the order dated 9.5.1984 but same was rejected by the learned Board of Revenue on 21.6.1988. The respondents-petitioners after aforesaid judgment became entitled for allotment of lands which were given to them in exchange, therefore, they applied to the Collector, but having failed in their attempt to get the land allotted, they moved an application to the State Government and the State Government vide order dated 14.5.1986 directed the Collector to allot the lands to the respondents-petitioners in accordance with law. 5. 5. As per the facts, several attempts were made by the respondents-petitioners and orders were passed by the State Government in this regard, however, when land was not allotted to the respondents-petitioners pursuant to the order dated 14.5.1986 respondents-petitioners filed writ petition for implementation of the order passed by the State Government and said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 16.3.1990. 6. The State Government preferred an appeal against the order dated 16.3.1990 passed by this court. The Division Bench dismissed the said special appeal filed by the State vide order dated 11.3.1993 and held that order passed by the State Government on 14.5.1986 is binding on the appellants and they are bound to implement the same. Against the order dated 11.1.1993 passed by the Division Bench, the State Government preferred special leave petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court, that too, was dismissed on 3.8.1993. 7. In the meantime, the State Government challenged the order dated 9.5.1984 passed by the learned Board of Revenue by filing writ petition, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 11.1.1993. Against the judgment dated 11.1.1993, the State Government preferred special leave petition, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3.8.1993/15.1.1994. It is also one of the fact that in SBCWP No. 3664/1988 which filed by the respondents-petitioners for implementing the order dated 14.5.1986 in reply the State Government took stand that respondents-petitioners have got allotment by fraud, therefore, the State Government proposed to cancel the same. The issue was considered by the court in its order dated 16.3.1990 and it was observed that State Government cannot take a decision suo motu and it can only take civil proceedings if it was a case of fraud. The respondents-petitioners on account of failure of State Government to comply the directions issued by this Court on 16.3.1999 filed SB Civil Contempt Petition No. 171/1994 wherein after issuance of notice, the order was complied with by making allotment of land to the respondents-petitioners. 8. The State Government issued notices on 29.5.1991 proposing to cancel its order dated 14.5.1986 wherein again a notice dated 20.12.1995 (Annex.16) was issued by the State Government calling upon the respondents-petitioners to show cause as to why the order dated 14.5.1986 may not be revoked. 8. The State Government issued notices on 29.5.1991 proposing to cancel its order dated 14.5.1986 wherein again a notice dated 20.12.1995 (Annex.16) was issued by the State Government calling upon the respondents-petitioners to show cause as to why the order dated 14.5.1986 may not be revoked. As per the facts respondents-petitioners raised objections to the said notice and prayed to drop the proceedings, so also, claimed that the same amounts to contempt of the court. The objections raised by the respondents-petitioners were rejected by the State Government vide order dated 1.4.1997 (Annex.19) on the ground that State Government has the power to review under Section 85A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1986. 9. In this writ petition, the respondents-petitioners prayed to quash the order dated 1.4.1997 whereby the objections raised by him were rejected and notice dated 29.5.1995 and 20.12.1995. 10. The learned Single Judge after considering the arguments and Section 85A of the Land Revenue Act held that attempt on the part of the State Government is undo the settlement operation under the garb of exercising power of review is ex-facie against the statutory provisions, therefore, not sutainable in law. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the chequered history of this case and the fact that allotment was made in compliance of contempt proceedings initiated by this court for non-compliance of order passed in SBCWP No. 3664/1989. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge so as to allow the writ petition filed by the respondents-petitioners and to quash the order dated 1.4.1997 (Annex.19) passed by the State Government and notice dated 29.5.1991 (Annex.16) and 20.12.1995(Annex.17). 12. Therefore, the instant special appeal is hereby dismissed on merit as well as on delay.