Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 66 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Baya Devi

2022-01-07

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- '1. The judgment dated 20.11.2015 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, the judgment dated 20.11.2013 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (annex.5) and the judgment dated 09.01.2012 (Annex.3) passed by the District Collector, Barmer may very kindly be quashed and set aside; 2. The application preferred by the petitioner under Section 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 before the District Collector, Barmer may very kindly be allowed in terms of the prayer made thereunder;' 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that one Padma Ram was allotted the land in question comprised in Aaraji No.168/1 measuring about 100 bigha by on order dated 22.05.1976, while concealing and suppressing the fact of being trespasser of the land comprising in Aaraji No.25 Village Ambavari. Shri Padmaram sought regularization on the land which he has trespassed measuring about 55.4 bigha situated in Khasra No.25 and the same was regularized vide order dated 01.10.1977 and Khatedari for the same was granted on 22.05.1989. Thereafter, he sold the land on 10.01.1991 by a registered sale-deed. However, meanwhile the proceedings were initiated by the State for cancellation of the regularization by moving an application under Section 14(4) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land) Rules 1970, belatedly in the year 2009. The said application was rejected by District Collector, Barmer vide order dated 09.01.2012. Against the order dated 09.01.2012, the petitioner-State preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed on 20.11.2013, against which, the petitioner-State preferred second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed on 20.11.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such concealment has an impact and thus, the regularization must continue. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such concealment has an impact and thus, the regularization must continue. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. Looking into the facts that the dispute itself is of 1977 and there are concurrent orders of regularization; firstly the competent authority passed an order dated 01.10.1977 regarding regularization and same was upheld by District Collector, Barmer on 09.01.2012 and further upheld by learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 20.11.2013 and lastly by the Board of Revenue in second appeal on 20.11.2015, thus, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence at such belated stage. 7. This Court has particularly kept in consideration that from the regularization order dated 01.10.1977 to the year 2009, no steps were taken by the State-respondent to reverse the regularization, and thus, the challenge was at a belated stage. Every stage of interference was concurrently refuted by the respective authorities. 8. With the aforesaid observations, no case of interference is made out in the present petition, hence, the same is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.