Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1585 (RAJ)

Jitram v. The State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-16

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
ORDER 1. The matter comes up on an application (Inward No. 01/2022) preferred on behalf of the petitioner for early hearing of the case. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally today itself. 4. Brief facts are noted for deciding the present writ petition. The petitioner being an agriculturalist belonging to the Scheduled Caste applied for allotment of land under Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Area) Rules, 1975. The application of the petitioner was duly processed and he was allotted a piece of land in Chak No. 2MGM (b) in Murabba No.76/35, Kila No. 5 to 25 measuring 21 Bighas of irrigated land on 26.06.1996. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.24,706/- for the purchase of the said land. 5. In pursuance of the allotment so made, the possession of the land was handed-over to the petitioner and the irrigation facilities were also provided for the same. The petitioner continues to be in possession of the said land till today as he deposited all the dues of the land to the Government. In the year 1994, it was observed by the revenue authorities that the land which was allotted to the petitioner is actually the forest land as the revenue entries are in the name of the Forest Department. 6. In these circumstances, a report was summoned from the Patwari of the Halka which reflects that although the land is recorded in the name of Forest Department but the petitioner is in possession of the said land since 1976, which was duly allotted to him in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner once again moved an application in the year 2007 for entering his name in the revenue records. On the application so preferred by the petitioner, the Tehsildar, Gharsana, District Sriganganagar again summoned a report from the Patwari to produce the revenue records and it was on this report found that the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner but the revenue records reflect the said land in the name of Forest Department. The petitioner also preferred an application to the District Officer, Forest Department, Sriganganagar apprising the entire facts. The petitioner also preferred an application to the District Officer, Forest Department, Sriganganagar apprising the entire facts. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for correction of the entries in the revenue records and prays that the land allotted to him may be entered in the revenue records in his name instead of the Forest Department. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 6 Forest Department vehemently submitted that the forest land cannot be allotted to anybody for any purpose including for agriculture. He further submits that the land allotted by the Revenue Department to the petitioner being a forest land, the same should be canceled. 8. Shri D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the Revenue Department submits that the allotment made in the year 1976 in favour of the petitioner was a bona fide mistake and the forest land could not have been allotted to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that since the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner does not suffer from any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to another piece of land similar to the land allotted to him in the year 1976. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the other relevant record of the case. 10. The petitioner was allotted a piece of land in the year 1976 in accordance with the Rules of 1975 after the petitioner duly applied for the land in consonance with the provisions of law and thereafter, the allotment order was issued to him. The petitioner was handed-over the possession of the land and two installments thereof were paid by him. Since, the revenue authorities themselves were not aware of the fact that the land was mutated in the name of the Forest Department, therefore, no objection was raised initially. After the fact was unearth with respect to the land having being mutated in the name of the Forest Department, the rest of the amount was not taken from the petitioner, although the petitioner continues to hold the possession of the land till date. After the fact was unearth with respect to the land having being mutated in the name of the Forest Department, the rest of the amount was not taken from the petitioner, although the petitioner continues to hold the possession of the land till date. The land allotted to the petitioner is a forest land has been proved beyond doubt and in view of the settled position of law, the forest land cannot be allotted even for the agricultural purposes, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be in continued possession of the forest land. Since, there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner for getting the possession of the land allotted by the Revenue Department, it will be in the interest of justice that the petitioner approaches the respondent No. 3 - District Collector, Sriganganagar by way of filing an application for providing/allotting him the alternative piece of land in lieu of his allotment order passed on 26.06.1976. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 3 - District Collector, Sriganganagar by way of filing an application/representation for allotment of an alternate piece of land within a period of two weeks from today. The District Collector shall consider the application and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. 12. Needless to say that after the decision of the respondent No. 3 - District Collector, Sriganganager, the petitioner will not be entitled to continue with the possession of the present land any further.