Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj vs Madan Lal And Ors on 17 November, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 148/2009
State Of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Bijoliya, District Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Madan Lal S/o Shri Ramdev Agrawal
2. Smt. Krishan Kumar D/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal.
3. Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Prahalad Rai Hingad.
4. Ghanshyam S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Agrawal. (All residents
of Ganpati Bhawan, Indira Market Bhilwara.
5. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara.
6. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer.
7. Mining Engineer, Mines and Zoological Deptt., Bijoliya,
District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment
17/11/2022
Briefly stated facts of the case are that an application was
filed by the private respondent and their co-tenants before District
Collector, Bhilwara requesting that some part of their land situated
in revenue Village Rasadpura, Tehsil Bijoliya bearing khasra No.9,
Min Bilanaam Rakba ad-measuring 43 Bigha, 16 biswas is
occupied by cremation ground and is being used for public
purposes therefore, adjacent government land may be exchanged
with their land. The District Collector Bhilwara, vide order dated
11.05.2001 accepted the application and ordered for exchange of
khatedari land of the private respondents with the government
(2 of 3) [SAW-148/2009]
land. After about four years, vide order dated 28.04.2004, District
Collector Bhilwara cancelled order dated 11.05.2001 stating inter
alia that on reconsideration, it was found that the land allotted to
the private respondents was a potential mining area therefore, the
order of exchange of land dated 11.05.2001 was not in the
interest of state.
The order dated 28.04.2004 was challenged before Revenue
Appellate Authority by the private respondents by way of appeal
under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Revenue
Appellate Authority, vide order dated 12.10.2004 allowed the
appeal preferred by the private respondents and set aside the
order dated 28.04.2004. A revision petition was thereafter,
preferred before Board of Revenue, Ajmer by the present
appellants. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 03.05.2006
affirmed the order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated
12.10.2004.
Aggrieved by the orders of Revenue Appellate Authority and
Board of Revenue, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India was preferred by the appellants before
the learned Single Bench. The learned Single Bench, after hearing
the parties vide impugned order dated 14.09.2007, dismissed the
writ petition noticing that Revenue Appellate Authority and Board
of Revenue in their orders dated 12.10.2004 and 03.05.2006 have
recorded a finding that before passing the order dated
11.05.2001, the Collector had made a thorough enquiry, obtained
all necessary opinions and reports from all concerned authorities
and found that the land, in exchange of which the other land is
given, are having identical mining potential and therefore, it
cannot be said that against the non-mining potential area, mining
(3 of 3) [SAW-148/2009]
potential area has been granted to private respondent by way of
exchange.
Learned Single bench also noticed that order dated
28.04.2004 was passed by the District Collector Bhilwara without
providing opportunity of hearing to the affected parties therefore,
the same was held to be violative of the principles of natural
justice.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
This court vide order dated 28.09.2022 directed Shri Sunil
Beniwal, learned AAG to obtain latest factual position qua the land
in question. In reply to the aforesaid query, Shri Beniwal, AAG has
informed that certain part of the land in question has been allotted
to PHED and an overhead water tank has been constructed
thereupon.
In view of aforesaid submission, it is clear that land in
dispute cannot be restored to its original position. We also do not
find conclusions drawn by learned Single Bench and Revenue
Courts below contrary to provisions of law applicable or dehors the
material available on record. The concurrent findings of fact so
recorded, thus, do not call for any interference by this Court in
this intra court appeal.
In light of above discussion, the judgment of learned Single
Bench does not call for any interference.
In the result, the special appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
28-KshamaD/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
