Rajasthan High Court
Badhrinarayan Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 31 January, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023/RJJP/000926]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5076/2019
Badhrinarayan Son Of Shri Bhuraram, Aged About 75 Years,
Resident Of Sambhar Tehsil Phulera, Headquarter Sambhar Lake
District Jaipur.
----Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Phulera, Headquarter
Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Pareek
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment
31/01/2023
This writ petition is filed gainst the judgment dated
11.01.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for
brevity, "BoR") dismissing the Appeal No.7356/2014 preferred by
the petitioner/appellant (for brevity, "petitioner") against the
judgment dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Revenue Appellate
Authority, Jaipur in Appeal No.7/2014 preferred against the
judgment dated 12.03.2014 passed by the Additional Collector
(IV), Jaipur in application No.30/2011 allowing the application filed
by the respondent under Section 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue (Allotment of land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970
(for brevity, "the Rules of 1970") and cancelling the allotment
dated 17.12.1969 made in favour of the petitioner.
The relevant facts in brief are that vide order dated
17.12.1969, the petitioner was allotted 7.05 bigha of land out of
[2023/RJJP/000926] (2 of 3) [CW-5076/2019]
Khasra No.329 in Village Sainipura, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur.
The respondent filed an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules
of 1970 seeking cancellation of the allotment made in favour of
the petitioner alleging that concealing the fact that he was
employed as Senior Assistant in the Sambhar Salts Ltd., a
Government of India undertaking at the relevant time, the
petitioner has obtained the allotment. The Additional Collector
(IV), Jaipur vide its judgment dated 12.03.2014, recording a
categorical finding that at the time of allotment made in favour of
the petitioner, no land was available in Khasra No.329 as its entire
area admeasuring 79 bigha 7 biswa was already allotted in favour
of different persons and the petitioner was not in possession of
any piece of land as also that the petitioner has obtained
allotment concealing the fact that he was employed in a public
undertaking, canelled the allotment made in his favour vide order
dated 17.12.1969. The judgment has been affirmed by the
Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 28.10.2014 and
by the BoR vide judgment dated 11.01.2019.
Although, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the
findings; but, could not dispute that the petitioner was employed
in the Sambhar Salts Ltd., a Government of India undertaking
from 16.02.1966 till 31.12.2004.
In view of the aforesaid undisputed position as to the
petitioner being an employee at the relevant time in a
Government of India undertaking, he was not entitled for
allotment of land under the Rules 1970 as its Rule 2(iii-B)(a), an
employee of the Government or of a commercial or industrial
establishment or concern, does not fall within the definition of
[2023/RJJP/000926] (3 of 3) [CW-5076/2019]
"landless agriculturist" and is not entitled for allotment of the land.
A division Bench of this court has, in case of Balkishan Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors., 2008 (3) ILR (Raj.)308,
MANU/RH/1393/2008, held that if the allotment under Rules,
1970 has been obtained making misrepresentation or exercising
fraud, even conferment of the Khatedari rights or long lapse of
time after the date of allotment before it is cancelled, would not
come in way of cancellation. In the present case, the petitioner
was not even conferred Khatedari rights before cancellation of the
land allotted to him.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no reason to
interfere in the judgment impugned.
This writ petition is dismissed accordingly being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
