Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1513 (RAJ)

Ramesh S/o Kishan v. Manguram S/o Ram Sahai

2024-11-05

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2024
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereafter ‘the Board’). 2. The relevant facts are that patta for khasra No. 128/150 measuring two bigha eight biswas situated in village Govindpura, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.1989. The respondents on 07.08.2000 filed an application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short ‘Rules of 1970’). The Additional Collector vide order dated 12.04.2001 set aside the order of allotment. The Revenue Appellate Authority (hereafter ‘RAA’) allowed the appeal upholding the order of allotment on 11.09.2008. The appeal of the respondent was accepted by the Board on 21.08.2017. Hence, the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 was filed after the delay of eleven years. The petitioner had proved cultivating possession on the land. The grounds prescribed under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 for cancellation of the allotment were not applicable in present case. 4. As per contra, the land of the petitioner is a small strip encircled by the land of the respondents and the land was wrongly allotted to the petitioner. The possession of the land in question is of respondents and the land was never cultivated by the petitioner. There is no limitation for filing an application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970. 5. Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’) is enabling provision for allotment of agricultural land to the landless people as per manner prescribed in Rules. The Rules of 1970 were framed by the State Government for allotment of agricultural land to landless persons. 6. Rule 14 deals with the condition for allotment of land. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970 stipulates the condition for cancellation of the allotment. Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 is reproduced: 14. The Rules of 1970 were framed by the State Government for allotment of agricultural land to landless persons. 6. Rule 14 deals with the condition for allotment of land. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970 stipulates the condition for cancellation of the allotment. Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 is reproduced: 14. Condition of Allotment: (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made by a Sub Divisional Office or a Tehsildar or a Tehsildar under the rules repealed by rule 21 of the rules either suo-moto or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment: Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard. xxx xxx xxx 7. Under the aforesaid Rule, cancellation of allotment can be done in case the allotment is a result of fraud, misrepresentation or made against the Rules or the allottee has violated the conditions of the allotment. 8. The conditions of allotment have been mentioned in Form V as prescribed under the Rules of 1970. 9. Form V is reproduced below: Form V (See Rule 15) Order of Allotment of Unoccupied Government Land 1. Name of allottee Mr./Mrs./Miss.................S/o/D/o...............Age............R/o.................. Tehsil.....................District......................... 1.A. Name of the Joint allottee Shri.................S/o.................Age...... (husband) and the Smt................. W/o.................Age....................(wife) R/o.....................Tehsil..............District............... 2. Date and time of receipt of application as recorded in Column 3 of the Register of Applications for Allotment of Unoccupied land in Form IV. 3. Date and place of order of allotment. 4. Particulars of Land Allotted: (i) Name of village. (ii) Reference to entry in the List Unoccupied Government Lands corrected upto 30th September, 20............mentioned in Form I. (iii) Khasra number of land allotted. (iv) Area in hectares of Rent allotted. (v) Soil classification. (vi) Means of irrigation, if any, with details. 5. Price of the wells, existing permanent structures and trees growing on the land, if any, referred to in rule 14(5), with date when payment is to be made by the allottee. 6. Annual rent payable. 7. (iv) Area in hectares of Rent allotted. (v) Soil classification. (vi) Means of irrigation, if any, with details. 5. Price of the wells, existing permanent structures and trees growing on the land, if any, referred to in rule 14(5), with date when payment is to be made by the allottee. 6. Annual rent payable. 7. Conditions of allotment: (1) The allotment is on a Gair Khatedari tenancy with a right of ultimate conferment of Khatedari rights after the expiry of a period of three years provided the allottee fulfills during this period the terms and conditions of allotment. Until Khatedari rights are conferred, the allottee shall have all the rights and be subjected to all the liabilities of a Gair Khatedar tenant under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. (2) The allotment is subject to the payment of annual rent at the sanctioned rent-rates applicable to the land as per rule 14(2). The annual rent shall be paid on or before............every year. (3) The allottee shall have to bring the land under cultivation and shall utilize it properly. (4) The allottee shall not construct any permanent structures or buildings other than a tank, well or a dwelling house which comes within the definition of an “improvement” as defined by clause (19) of section 5 of the Tenancy Act, before acquisition of Khatedari rights. (5) The land shall be resumed by the State Government without payment of compensation if: (a) it is not brought under cultivation strictly in accordance with the conditions of allotment and it is not properly utilized. (b) it is sublet or transferred in contravention of the provision of the Tenancy Act, applicable to Gair Khatedar tenants. (c) it is found that the allottee was not a landless person as defined in Tenancy Act. (d) the allottee makes default in the timely payment of the price referred to in clause 5 of rule 14 and or the annual rent. (e) the allottee makes constructions on the land in contravention of the allotment rules. Seal of S.D.O. Signature of Sub-Divisional Officer Date................. 10. It is not the case that the allotment was result of fraud or misrepresentation. No case is made out of allotment against the Rules. (e) the allottee makes constructions on the land in contravention of the allotment rules. Seal of S.D.O. Signature of Sub-Divisional Officer Date................. 10. It is not the case that the allotment was result of fraud or misrepresentation. No case is made out of allotment against the Rules. The Revenue Appellate Authority after perusing the revenue record, held that as per khasra girdavari samvat 2051-2054, the petitioner on the land allotted cultivated Chari Sarso, Bajra and in the samvat 2055-2056, Bajra was cultivated. In the revenue record for samvat 2051 and 2055 the land was entered in name of petitioner as gair khatedar. Further that in samvat 2030 the respondents were possessing the land as encroachers. 11. It is admitted fact that no appeal was filed against the order of allotment and it remained unchallenged. 12. The Board proceeded as if the allotment order was under challenge. The observations were that the land in question was encompassed by land of the respondents, resultantly they were entitled for allotment of this land and without considering the claim of the respondents, the land was allotted to the petitioner. The finding recorded that cultivating possession of the petitioner was not proved is contrary to the revenue record. The RAA on basis of the revenue record for samvat 2051-2054, 2055-2056 concluded that petitioner had sown Chari, Sarso, Bajra. It was held by RAA on the basis of revenue record that prior to the allotment of the land to the petitioner possession of the respondents in samvat 2030 was of an encroacher. 13. The matter needs to be considered from another angle. The land was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1989. The application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 was filed after eleven years. Though there is no limitation provided under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 but it is settled law that where no time limit is stipulated, the proceedings are to be initiated within a reasonable time. In the case in hand, there is no explanation much less worth acceptance to justify the initiation of proceedings after eleven years. 14. It would be pertinent to note at the cost of repetition that it is not a case where fraud or misrepresentation has been made basis for cancellation of the allotment. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in Pat Ram and Others Vs. 14. It would be pertinent to note at the cost of repetition that it is not a case where fraud or misrepresentation has been made basis for cancellation of the allotment. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in Pat Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, 1995 (0) DNJ 592 while dealing with the issue “the allotment was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963 and the cancellation has been made in the year 1979 after the lapse of about 16 years which could not have been made even if the wrong allotment of the land has been made in favour of the petitioners” held as under: “9. Now it has to be seen: whether any order cancelling the allotment, can be passed after the lapse of sixteen years? The allotment of the land was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963 and the possession was handed over to them and the petitioners remained in possession of the land for about sixteen years and the order of cancellation of the allotment has been passed by the Collector, Bikaner, after the lapse of about sixteen years. It is a settled position of law that where the power has been conferred upon an authority to effectuate a purpose then that has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and within reasonable time. After the lapse of about sixteen years, when the allotment was not obtained either on misrepresentation or fraud, the exercise of the powers by the Collector for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, was not justified. It has been held in Mansa Ram v. S.P. Pathak and Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 125 as under “Further, where power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and the reasonable exercise of power inheres, its exercise within a reasonable time. Though no limitation is prescribed for exercise of power under Clause 28 by the Collector, he should act within a reasonable time. (1984) 1 SCC 125 as under “Further, where power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and the reasonable exercise of power inheres, its exercise within a reasonable time. Though no limitation is prescribed for exercise of power under Clause 28 by the Collector, he should act within a reasonable time. This aspect must be present to the mind of House Allotment Officer before just rushing in on an unproved technical contravention brought to his notice contrived by the successor-in-interest of the deceased landlord, and evicting the appellant 22 years-after his entry and 9 years after his retirement on the short ground that his entry in the year 1954 was in contravention of Clause 22(2). 10. In Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1989 (1) RLR 221 , it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court, as under: “It is well known that even if no time is fixed for the exercise of the statutory powers, the same must be exercised within a reasonable time. If the resolution to enter into compromise was made in the year 1983, the powers under Section 300 of the Act, even assuming that it could be exercised, in this case, could have been exercised within reasonable time and not in the year 1988, i.e. after the lapse of five years.” The Collector, Bikaner, has erred in law in cancelling the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners after the lapse of 16 years.” 16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Board is set-aside and the order of RAA is upheld.