HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10030/2021 The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Indraj S/o Jeetram, Through Legal Heirs-
1/1 Vidhya Devi W/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
1/2. Ramkumar S/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
1/3. Meera Yadav D/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
1/4. Meena D/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
1/5. Jaiprakash S/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.
2. The Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
05/08/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-State being aggrieved with the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue') in revision petition No.3881/2009 whereby, while accepting the revision filed by the respondents, the Board of Revenue has ordered for closure of the proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of Rule 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Downloaded on 06/08/2021 at 08:58:27 PM) (2 of 8) [CW-10030/2021] (Sale And Allotment of Government Land In Indra Gandhi Canal Area) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules of 1975').
Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor of applicant Indraj had applied for permanent allotment of land under the provisions of Rules of 1975. The said application came to be rejected by the allotting authority in the year 1975 on the ground that the applicant was not bonafide resident of State of Rajasthan prior to 1.4.1975. The applicant Indraj had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed on 31.05.1976. Thereafter, again he preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which also came to be dismissed in the year 1977. Then applicant Indraj had preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was decided by this Court on 09.04.1979 with a direction to the allotment committee to decide his application for allotment of land on merits.
Pursuant to the said judgment passed by this Court, the claim of the applicant Indraj for permanent allotment of agriculture land was again considered and it was declared that applicant Indraj is entitled for allotment of 20.15 bighas of the agriculture land.
It appears that despite the said decision of the allotment committee dated 15.01.1982, he was allotted only 19 bighas of un-command land. Applicant Indraj again approached the allotment committee contending that he is entitled for 20.15 bighas of command land but only 19 bighas of un-command land was allotted to him.
The allotment committee vide order dated 27.12.1986 ordered that applicant Indraj was found entitled for allotment of 20.15 bighas of command land but was allotted only 19 bighas of (Downloaded on 06/08/2021 at 08:58:27 PM) (3 of 8) [CW-10030/2021] un-command land, therefore, earlier allotment of 19 bighas of un- command land was cancelled and he was allotted 24.10 bighas of un-command land at another place. Pursuant to that order of allottment committee, applicant Indraj was allotted 24.10 bighas of un-command land in Murba No. 163/63 of Chak 1 JSM. It appears that Indraj was handed over possession of the said land and he started cultivation on the same land.
In the year 1999, i.e. after thirteen years, the colonization authorities moved an application before the District Collector, Sriganganagar under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 alleging that though applicant Indraj was entitled for 20.15 bighas of land but he was allotted 24.10 bighas and, as such, 3.15 bighas of excess land was allotted to him, therefore, the said allotment of excess land be cancelled.
The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 27.05.2002 allowed the said application and ordered for resumption of 3.15 of bighas of land from applicant Indraj.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.05.2002, applicant Indraj had filed a review application before the District Collector, however, the same was rejected by the District Collector vide order dated 16.02.2009, against which, a revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue in the year 2009 itself, which came to be decided by the Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 29.08.2019.
While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Rules of 1975, a landless agriculturalist is entitled for permanent allotment of 25 bighas of land and as applicant Indraj was already holding 4.05 bighas of land, he was found suitable for allotment of 20.10 (Downloaded on 06/08/2021 at 08:58:27 PM) (4 of 8) [CW-10030/2021] bighas of land, however, due to inadvertence, instead of 20.10 bighas of agricultural land, he was allotted 24.10 bighas of land vide allotment order dated 27.12.1986. It is submitted that when the said fact was pointed out to the District Collector, it had rightly passed the order for resumption of excess land allotted to applicant Indraj vide order dated 27.05.2002 and thereafter, rightly dismissed the review application filed on behalf of Indraj. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Board of Revenue without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter that excess land was allotted to applicant Indraj, has illegally passed the impugned order dated 29.8.2019. It is, thus, prayed that this writ petition may be accepted and the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 may kindly be set aside.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
The peculiar facts of this case reflect the state of affairs that how the State authorities are dealing with the poor agriculturists. Applicant Indraj filed an application way back in the year 1975 for permanent allotment of agricultural land under the Rules of 1975. The said application was rejected by the authorities concerned in the year, 1975 itself, then he was forced to approach up to this Court and ultimately in the year 1979, this Court granted relief to applicant Indraj. Thereafter, the authorities concerned took three years in deciding the claim of applicant Indraj for permanent allotment of agriculture land and at that point also, less land was allotted to him. Again the poor agriculturist was forced to approach the authorities concerned and they took four years to order for allotment of land, for which, applicant Indraj was entitled to.
(Downloaded on 06/08/2021 at 08:58:27 PM)
(5 of 8) [CW-10030/2021] It is also to be noticed that the said land was not allotted to applicant Indraj free of cost, but he was required to pay for the same as per the Rules of 1975. After thirteen years of the allotment of the land to applicant Indraj, one fine morning, the colonization department had realized that 4.10 bighas of the excess land was allotted to applicant Indraj thirteen years before and then they moved an application before the District Collector for resumption of the excess allotted land. It took three years to the District Collector to decide that the applicant Inderaj was allotted 3.15 bighas of excess land way back in the year 1986 and this land should be resumed.
Again the applicant was forced to file a review application before the District Collector, who took seven years to reject the said review application. The poor agriculturalist was forced to approach the Board of Revenue in the year, 2009 itself and now the matter has been decided by the Board of Revenue after a period of ten years i.e. in the year, 2019. The facts narrated above are more than enough to reflect on the situation of the poor agriculturalists and the sentiments of the authorities concerned towards them.
The Board of Revenue has taken into consideration the fact that out of 24.10 bighas of un-command land allotted to the applicant Indraj, 4 bighas of the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of road and water channel and no compensation for that has been paid to the applicant Indraj and this fact has not been disputed by the State.
It is argued before the Board of Revenue that as per the allotment order dated 27.12.1986, the applicant was declared entitled for allotment of 20.10 bighas of command land but he was (Downloaded on 06/08/2021 at 08:58:27 PM) (6 of 8) [CW-10030/2021] allotted 24.10 bighas of un-command land and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that any excess land was allotted to the applicant Indraj, however, the said contention has not been dealt with by the Board of Revenue but in the opinion of this Court the said contention of the applicant Inderaj was having force and was required to be considered by the Board of Revenue.
Be that as it may, the Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal preferred on behalf of the applicant Indraj on the ground that 4 bighas of land out of the 24.10 bighas of land was already acquired for the purpose of construction of road and water channels and as such no case of excess allotment is made out. The Board of Revenue has also observed that the allotment in question is thirty three years old and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Brijlal Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128, the allotment made in favour of the applicant Indraj for alleged excess land way back in the year 1986 is not liable to be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that only 1 bigha of the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of road and water channel instead of 4 bighas as observed by the Board of Revenue. May be, only 1 bigha of land out of the allotted 24.10 bighas of land was acquired for the purpose of construction of road and water channel then also the fact remains that the applicant Indraj was entitled for allotment of 20.10 bighas of command land instead he was allotted 24.10 bighas of un- command land and that is sufficient to hold that the allotment of 24.10 bighas of un-command land to the applicant Indraj cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.
(Downloaded on 06/08/2021 at 08:58:27 PM)
(7 of 8) [CW-10030/2021] Apart from that, even it is not a case of the State that the applicant Indraj had procured the allotment of 24.10 bighas of land or excess of 4 bighas of the land by making any misrepresentation before the colonization authorities.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijlal's case (supra) while dealing with the case wherein, the authorities have cancelled the allotment of a person on the ground that at the time of allotment of land, the person was minor and thereafter the permanent allotment made in his favour on the basis of the temporary allotment was illegal, has held that there was no iota of evidence on the record to show that at the time of temporary allotment of land, the said person was minor and the authorities have also failed to show that the person has misrepresented regarding his age at the time of allotment and there was no basis for the allotment authorities to reach findings that the person was minor at the time of temporary allotment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the person is in culitvatory possession of the land since 1970 and it would be travesty of justice to dispossess him from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades.
In this case also, the allotment was made way back in the year, 1986 and now after thirty five years, the respondent State is bent upon to cancel the allotment of the applicant Indraj to the extent of 4 bighas.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstance of the case, I do not find any case for interference in this writ petition, hence this writ petition is dismissed.
However, taking into consideration the attitude of the State authorities towards the poor agriculturalist and his family, who (Downloaded on 06/08/2021 at 08:58:27 PM) (8 of 8) [CW-10030/2021] have been dragged to litigation from last around 35 years, I deem it appropriate to levy a cost upon the State. Hence, the State is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the State Legal Service Authority at Jodhpur within a period of one month from today as it is noticed that over the time, the applicant Indraj had already sold his 20.10 bighas of land to some other persons, hence it would not be appropriate to award the cost in favour of his legal representatives.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J Surabhii/42-
(Downloaded on 06/08/2021 at 08:58:27 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)