Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamal Chand Kochar vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CW-2834/2010]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2834/2010
Kamal Chand Kochar
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Joshi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/12/2021
1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
"I. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari, the impugned
orders/judgments dated 31.07.2006 (Annex.-9) and
2.2.2010 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set
aside and allotment dated 7.3.1992 (Annex.1) in
favour of the petitioner may kindly be restored.
II. Pending the petition, if any order is passed or any
action is taken against the petitioner prejudicial to
his interest, the same may kindly be quashed and
set-aside."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon an
application being filed by the petitioner under the Rajasthan
Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira
Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975, he was allotted a land
vide allotment order 07.03.1992 under the category of landless
(Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 08:57:59 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-2834/2010]
person. Learned counsel however, submits that the said allotment
was cancelled by the Commissioner Colonization, IGNP, Bikaner
vide order dated 20.01.1998.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
against the said order of cancellation of allotment dated
20.01.1998, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the
learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, whereupon the
learned Board vide order dated 19.07.1999, remanded the matter
back to the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat to decide
the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
thereafter vide order dated 15.01.2000 passed by the Assistant
Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat, the initial allotment of land
made in favour of the petitioner was maintained. Learned counsel
however, submits that the said order dated 15.01.2000 was
challenged by the Tehsildar by filing an appeal before the
Additional Colonization Commissioner -cum- Revenue Appellate
Authority, Bikaner, which was allowed vide order dated 07.12.2000
on the ground that sufficient evidence has not been produced to
show that the petitioner was an agriculturist, and accordingly, the
allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled
vide the said order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition against the
aforementioned order dated 07.12.2000, before the learned Board
of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, but the said revision petition
was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2002; whereafter, a review
(Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 08:57:59 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-2834/2010]
petition was also filed against the said order dated 25.06.2002,
but the same was also dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner being aggrieved of all the aforementioned orders and
the subsequent orders pertaining to cancellation of allotment of
land made in his favour, the petitioner preferred a writ petition
being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.49/2004 before this Hon'ble Court,
which was allowed vide order dated 11.03.2005, while remanding
the matter back to the Additional Colonization Commissioner-cum-
Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the matter afresh.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
aforementioned appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and
the allotment was cancelled vide order dated 31.07.2006 on the
ground that the petitioner was not an agriculturist, and the
revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 02.02.2010
by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
allotment in question was in accordance with law, and thus, the
same cannot be interfered with by the authorities subsequently.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner being a poor person falls in the category of landless
person, and thus, the cancellation of the allotment of land shall
permanently prejudice his rights.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the clear opinion
that the impugned orders were lawfully passed, as the petitioner
himself had failed to give the requisite proof, as required, that he
was a bona fide agriculturist, and in factum it is on record that the
petitioner was having a private job, and thus, he did not fall under
(Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 08:57:59 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-2834/2010]
the category of a bona fide agriculturist entitling him to the
allotment of land in question. The record also indicates that the
petitioner's father is having 75 bighas of land in his name and the
petitioners share was there in the said land, and thus, the
impugned orders have been rightly passed, whereby it has been
recorded that the petitioner himself has not refuted the fact of his
doing a private job, and thus, the same is in clear contradiction of
his undertaking that he is bona fide agriculturist.
11. In view of the above, no case for making any interference is
made out.
12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
105-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
