Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 558 (RAJ)

Sattar Khan S/o Kadar Baksh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-05

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15442/2023: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, the appeal and the revision petition filed by the petitioner have been rejected. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was in occupation of a piece of land situated in Chak 5, N.G.M. Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner. While the petitioner was holding the possession of the said land, he applied for allotment of the said land and on his application, a challan was issued by the respondent on 25.06.1999 for deposition of the 35% of the total amount. However, the said amount was not deposited by the petitioner. In the year 2009, the land which was in possession of the petitioner, was allotted to the private respondent No. 5. The allotment made in favour of the private respondent was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. After hearing the parties, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.07.2016. The order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer too vide order dated 24.08.2023 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a poor illiterate agriculturist and the private respondent No. 5, who, purportedly familiar with the procedure of allotment in good faith paid the amount reflected in the challan dated 25.06.1999 to him for depositing with the respondents. However, the private respondent did not deposit the same and, therefore, the allotment was not made in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the private respondent in the year 2009 was allotted the same land which was in possession of the petitioner. However, the private respondent did not deposit the same and, therefore, the allotment was not made in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the private respondent in the year 2009 was allotted the same land which was in possession of the petitioner. He submits that the allotment made in favour of the private respondent was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, but the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, without considering the facts in right perspective rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. He further submits that against the order of Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer but the same was also dismissed. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the Revisional Authority on the face of it are incorrect as the petitioner being in possession of the land in question is a poor agriculturist who is unaware of the procedure of allotment of the land and since the amount was given to the private respondent No. 5 for depositing the same with the respondents, he did not deposit the same, thus, the allotment was not made in his favour and after 10 years, by misrepresenting the facts, the said land has been allotted in favour of the private respondent. He submits that the learned Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority have not appreciated the facts canvassed before it and, therefore, have committed an error while passing the orders impugned. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the allotment made in favour of the private respondent No. 5 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5 submits that the allotment made in favour of the private respondent is perfectly in order as the procedure of allotment of the land in question was followed by him and the amount due for the same was also deposited by him. Learned counsel submits that there is no procedural irregularity in allotment of the land made in favour of the private respondent. He further submits that the respondent has not misrepresented any fact to deprive the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that there is no procedural irregularity in allotment of the land made in favour of the private respondent. He further submits that the respondent has not misrepresented any fact to deprive the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have rightly passed the orders impugned in the present writ petition. He also submits that after allotment of the land in favour of the private respondent, the Khatedari rights have also been granted in his favour. He further submits that after issuance of the challan in the year 1999, the petitioner has not approached any authority for allotment of land in his favour. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record of the case including the orders impugned in the present case. 7. The allotment order issued in favour of the private respondent was made after following due process of law. The Revenue Appellate Authority has considered the submissions made by the petitioner in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that the land which is in possession of the petitioner has been allotted to the private respondent after following due process of law and since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount for allotment of land, the allotment was not made in his favour. There is no material on record which shows that the private respondent has misrepresented the facts before the allotment authority and has got the land allotted in his favour which should have been allotted to the petitioner. Even the FIR filed by the petitioner against the private respondent was also found baseless as negative Final Report has been filed in that FIR. The finding of Revenue Appellate Authority has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue by passing a detailed order dated 24.08.2023 after dealing and recording the contentions of the petitioner. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the writ petition and thus, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16911/2023: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the writ petition and thus, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16911/2023: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, the appeal and the revision petition filed by the petitioner have been rejected. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was in occupation of a piece of land situated in Chak 5, N.G.M. Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner. While the petitioner was holding the possession of the said land, he applied for allotment of the said land and on his application, a challan was issued by the respondent on 25.06.1999 for deposition of the 35% of the total amount. However, the said amount was not deposited by the petitioner. In the year 2009, the land which was in possession of the petitioner, was allotted to the private respondent No. 5. The allotment made in favour of the private respondent was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. After hearing the parties, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.07.2016. The order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer too vide order dated 24.08.2023 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a poor illiterate agriculturist and the private respondent No. 5, who, purportedly familiar with the procedure of allotment in good faith paid the amount reflected in the challan dated 25.06.1999 to him for depositing with the respondents. However, the private respondent did not deposit the same and, therefore, the allotment was not made in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the private respondent in the year 2009 was allotted the same land which was in possession of the petitioner. However, the private respondent did not deposit the same and, therefore, the allotment was not made in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the private respondent in the year 2009 was allotted the same land which was in possession of the petitioner. He submits that the allotment made in favour of the private respondent was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, but the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, without considering the facts in right perspective rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. He further submits that against the order of Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer but the same was also dismissed. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the Revisional Authority on the face of it are incorrect as the petitioner being in possession of the land in question is a poor agriculturist who is unaware of the procedure of allotment of the land and since the amount was given to the private respondent No. 5 for depositing the same with the respondents, he did not deposit the same, thus, the allotment was not made in his favour and after 10 years, by misrepresenting the facts, the said land has been allotted in favour of the private respondent. He submits that the learned Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority have not appreciated the facts canvassed before it and, therefore, have committed an error while passing the orders impugned. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the allotment made in favour of the private respondent No. 5 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5 submits that the allotment made in favour of the private respondent is perfectly in order as the procedure of allotment of the land in question was followed by him and the amount due for the same was also deposited by him. Learned counsel submits that there is no procedural irregularity in allotment of the land made in favour of the private respondent. He further submits that the respondent has not misrepresented any fact to deprive the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that there is no procedural irregularity in allotment of the land made in favour of the private respondent. He further submits that the respondent has not misrepresented any fact to deprive the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have rightly passed the orders impugned in the present writ petition. He also submits that after allotment of the land in favour of the private respondent, the Khatedari rights have also been granted in his favour. He further submits that after issuance of the challan in the year 1999, the petitioner has not approached any authority for allotment of land in his favour. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record of the case including the orders impugned in the present case. 7. The allotment order issued in favour of the private respondent was made after following due process of law. The Revenue Appellate Authority has considered the submissions made by the petitioner in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that the land which is in possession of the petitioner has been allotted to the private respondent after following due process of law and since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount for allotment of land, the allotment was not made in his favour. There is no material on record which shows that the private respondent has misrepresented the facts before the allotment authority and has got the land allotted in his favour which should have been allotted to the petitioner. Even the FIR filed by the petitioner against the private respondent was also found baseless as negative Final Report has been filed in that FIR. The finding of Revenue Appellate Authority has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue by passing a detailed order dated 24.08.2023 after dealing and recording the contentions of the petitioner. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the writ petition and thus, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.