Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1893 (RAJ)

Vishnu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-04

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 12.1.17 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the judgment and decree dated 29.3.12 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Chittorgarh in Appeal No. 12/11, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the villagers of the village Kharmaliya, Tehsil Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, the respondents no. 3/1 to 3/18 herein, submitted an application under Rule 14(4) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules of 1970") for cancellation of allotment of land comprising Arazi no. 680/946 and Arazi no. 680 made by the Allotment Advisory Committee in favour of the petitioners herein. The villagers claimed that land allotted in favour of the petitioners form part of the pasture land and therefore, same was not available for allotment under the Rules. The application preferred was rejected by the District Collector, Pratapgarh vide order dated 27.12.10 observing that at the time of settlement, the disputed land was recorded as bilanam and was in long possession of the petitioners herein and therefore, the allotment made in favour of the petitioners cannot be faulted with. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector, Pratapgarh as aforesaid, the respondents no. 3/1 to 3/18 preferred an appeal before the RAA, Chittorgarh. After due consideration of the rival submissions and the material on record, the RAA arrived at the finding that the disputed land is recorded as pasture land since the year 1965 and the allotment of the pasture land being prohibited under the law, the same could not have been allotted in favour of the petitioners herein. Accordingly, vide order dated 29.3.12, the allotment made in favour of the petitioners was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the second appeal preferred by the petitioners herein also stands dismissed by the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the findings arrived at by the Board of Revenue on the basis of inadmissible evidence and ignoring the material on record is ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners could not have been cancelled by the RAA after a lapse of about 5 years. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the findings arrived at by the Board of Revenue on the basis of inadmissible evidence and ignoring the material on record is ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners could not have been cancelled by the RAA after a lapse of about 5 years. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question is classified and recorded as bilanam in the revenue record and thus, without there being any justifiable basis, the finding arrived at by the RAA, affirmed by the Board of Revenue that the disputed land forms part of the pasturage is absolutely erroneous. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 5. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the RAA as also the Board of Revenue have examined the relevant revenue record in its entirety and thus, the finding recorded based on documentary evidence cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. It is a matter of record that prior to allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners, the land measuring 11 bighas 6 biswas comprising khasra no. 489 (new khasras 680 and 680/946) was allotted in favour of Chand Mohammed. The allotment made in his favour was set aside by the District Collector, Chittorgarh and the entire land comprising khasra no. 489 was ordered to be recorded as pasture. The order passed by the District Collector was affirmed by the RAA vide order dated 14.11.79 passed in Appeal No. 222/79. The said order was affirmed by the Board of Revenue and consequently, vide mutation no. 215, the land in question was recorded as pasture land in Jamabandi of Samvat 2032-2035. There was nothing on record suggesting that the land recorded as pasture was ever directed to be recorded as bilanam banzar in the revenue record by an order of any competent authority. Suffice it to say that the land which has already been declared as pasture land by the court of competent jurisdiction, the same could not have classified as bilanam banzar without there being an order of the competent authority passed in accordance with law. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the concurrent finding arrived by the revenue courts after examination of the revenue record cannot be faulted with. 6. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the concurrent finding arrived by the revenue courts after examination of the revenue record cannot be faulted with. 6. Coming to the position of pasture land under the law, it is noticed that 'Pasture land' as defined by Section 5(28) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") shall mean land used for grazing of the cattle of a village or villages or recorded in settlement records as such at the commencement of the Act or thereafter reserved as such in accordance with the Rules framed by the State Government. As per provisions of Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956(for short "the Act of 1956"), subject to general or special orders of the State Government, the Collector may set apart land for any special purpose such as for free pasturage of cattle, for forest reserve, for development of abadi or for any other public or municipal purpose and such land shall not be used otherwise than for the purpose without the previous sanction of the Collector. Section 16 of the Act of 1955 prohibits accrual of khatedari rights in pasture land. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1970 which specifies the categories of the land not available for allotment for agriculture purposes includes the lands mentioned in Section 16 of the Act of 1955 which includes the pasture land as aforesaid. 7. Section 93 of Act of 1956 mandates that the right of grazing on pasturage land shall extend only to the cattle of the village or villages for which such land has been set apart and shall be regulated by the Rules made by the State Government. 8. As per Rule 7 in Chapter II of Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (for short "Rules of 1955"), incorporated to give effect to the provisions of Section 5(28) of the Act of 1955, the Collector is empowered to change the classification of any pasture land as defined u/s. 5(28) or any pasture land set apart u/s. 92 of the Act of 1956 as unoccupied culturable government land (Siwai Chak), for allotment for agriculture or any non agricultural purposes. However, as per First proviso to Rule 7 in case where land sought to be allotted or set apart exceeds 4 hectares, the Collector is under an obligation to obtain prior permission of the State Government. However, as per First proviso to Rule 7 in case where land sought to be allotted or set apart exceeds 4 hectares, the Collector is under an obligation to obtain prior permission of the State Government. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 7 mandates that where classification of any pasture land is changed under sub-rule (1), the Collector may set apart an equal area of unculturable government land if available as pasture land in the same village. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners that the nature of pasture land was changed by the competent authority by adopting the procedure laid down as aforesaid under the Rules of 1955 and thus, viewed from any angle, the allotment of the land classified as pasture, in favour of the petitioners was not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.