Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2313 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Dakha Bai

2019-08-28

INDERJEET SINGH, S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. In these batch of appeals, the State of Rajasthan is aggrieved by the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, who allowed several writ petitions filed by the allottees of land, which had been earlier declined as surplus. 2. An extent of 76.78 standard acres of land were declared surplus by the Revenue Authorities. Several private respondents (hereafter referred to as "original owners") preferred appeals against the order declaring such surplus land on 16.5.1975. The appeals were unsuccessful; further appeals to the Board of Revenue, too, were not successful. The original owners, therefore, approached this Court by filing D.B. CWP No. 1713/1980. This writ petition was allowed on 3.1.1991. The Board of Revenue upon remand, partly allowed the appeal to the extent that the surplus land stood reduced to 47.84 standard acres. This led to filing of a second round of litigation i.e. CWP No. 545/1996, which contended that the said 47.84 standard acres were not surplus land. The writ petition was allowed on 17.2.2006; the ceiling proceedings were held to be without authority of law. 3. The original owners sought for recording of land in their favour, as a consequential measure. The possession was granted to them subsequently; their application was allowed and the land declared surplus were restored to them subject to adjustment towards facility such as road, canal and public way. 4. The SDO's order restoring land subsequent to order dated 17.2.2006, became subject matter of appeal by third parties, who are allottees of such surplus land. These allotments were made during the intervening period of 1975 to 2006. The appeal was rejected. In these circumstances, they preferred the revision, which was allowed. The Board of Revenue held that the allotment of the land, had enured in favour of such third parties and that since their rights were affected, they were entitled to possession or allotment of alternative land. The Board of Revenue further noted that the allottees could not have been placed at disadvantage, having regard to the subsequent event and the restoration of the lands to the original owners. The directions of the Board of Revenue's order became subject matter of proceedings. 5. In this third round of litigation, the original owners approached this Court again contending that their rights could not have been prejudiced. The directions of the Board of Revenue's order became subject matter of proceedings. 5. In this third round of litigation, the original owners approached this Court again contending that their rights could not have been prejudiced. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order faulted the State for not bringing relevant facts to the notice of the Court, while contesting proceedings and challenge to the ceiling orders. It was also observed that the State failed to notify the Court in CWP No. 545/1996; that third party rights had accrued by way of intervening allotments. At the same time, the learned Single Judge recognized that the Board of Revenue correctly gave effect to the rights of such third parties i.e. allottees. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, the learned Single Judge observed and directed as follows:- "Learned counsel appearing for the State Government is fair enough to state that as per the order of the Board of Revenue also, the State Government need to allot the alternative land to the petitioners if the compensation cannot be given as per the observation of this court. The Government can allot alternative land either to the petitioners or to the private-respondents. The private-respondents have no objection if they are allotted alternative land so as to avoid dispute. If the matching land is to be allotted to the petitioners, it would be in an area of 47.84 standard acres whereas, if they are given possession in the existing land then it would be less than the above because elimination of the land used for road, canal and public has been allowed by the Revenue Courts. It would be appropriate to substantiate the direction of the Board of Revenue to the extent of a direction to the State Government allot of alternative land to the petitioners. It should be for the private-respondents who were allotted land, as landless persons. Accordingly, the order of the Board of Revenue is substituted with a direction that while maintaining the possession of restoration of land of the petitioners, the landless persons i.e. the private-respondents be allotted matching land elsewhere and, if possible, nearby to the present place. The direction aforesaid is given for the ends of justice and to balance the equities. Accordingly, the order of the Board of Revenue is substituted with a direction that while maintaining the possession of restoration of land of the petitioners, the landless persons i.e. the private-respondents be allotted matching land elsewhere and, if possible, nearby to the present place. The direction aforesaid is given for the ends of justice and to balance the equities. A landless person cannot be deprived from the land already allotted but, in the peculiarity of the case, direction for allotment of other land has been given on an agreement by learned counsel for private-respondents. The allotment of land belonging to the petitioners during pendency of the litigation was not proper in the hands of the State Government. The State Government should have allotted land to the landless persons, which is not free from encumbrances and litigation and, if that would have been done, the direction of the nature given by this court, would not have been required. With the direction aforesaid, all the writ petitions are partly allowed. The compliance of the order of this court would be made by the State Government within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The direction aforesaid has been given because as per the order of the Board of Revenue, petitioner would get 47.84 Standard Acres of land whereas restoration is of lessor land, thus it would be beneficial to the State Government.” 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The record of these appeal would show that the lands were restored to the original owners after conclusion of several rounds of proceedings challenging the declaration of ceiling and surplus lands. The only surviving question which correctly engaged the attention of the Board of Revenue and later became subject matter of Single Judge's order was the balancing the equities, which was necessary in regard to third party rights of the allottees. The Board of Revenue had directed the payment of compensation or in lieu of that, allotment of alternative lands. The Single Judge substituted that order by a more equitable order, whereby the allottees (who by all accounts are innocent third parties injured on account of the State's inaction and who belong to deprived sections of the community) were directed to be given tangible benefits. 8. The Single Judge substituted that order by a more equitable order, whereby the allottees (who by all accounts are innocent third parties injured on account of the State's inaction and who belong to deprived sections of the community) were directed to be given tangible benefits. 8. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is nothing more than an instance of balancing of equities, where even while recognizing rights of the original owners, (who became entitled to their land after the orders declaring them to be surplus, were set aside), at the same time directed that the intervening allottees (who were landless in the first instance) ought to be given alternative allotment. 9. Having regard to all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for. However, the State is, hereby, directed to ensure that the identification and allotment of the land to the allottees i.e. subsequent allottees is completed within a period of six months from today. 10. The appeals are, hereby, dismissed in above terms.