Kishori Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4604 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015330]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4750/2020

Kishori Lal S/o Bangali Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o - V.p.o Sathana, Tehsil- Fatehpur, District- Kangra (H.p)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue), Suratgarh, District- Sriganganagar.

2. Amrati Devi D/o Manshadevi, R/o Sindhpur Thad, Tehsil-

Jwali, District- Kangra (Hp)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.C. Joshi Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

15/05/2023

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, that the writ petition of the petitioner

may kindly be allowed by quashing and setting aside

the impugned order as Annexure-1, 2 and 3."

2. Brief facts of the case are that:-

The Pong Dam oustees land situated in Chak 5 F.D.M.B.

Tehsil-Suratgarh, Square No.98/340 total 25 Bighas was allotted

to father of the petitioner on 24.12.1966 (hereinafter referred to

as "the land in question"). The possession of the land in question

was also allotted to him. However, the allotment of land in

[2023/RJJD/015330] (2 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

question was never cancelled by the competent authority but this

land was recorded as the Government Land in the revenue record.

3. The aforesaid land in question was not in surplus for

allotment. Despite that, the allotting authority, Suratgarh, allotted

the said land in favour of Smt. Amrati Devi on 29.02.2016 without

giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. In this regard, the appeal was filed against the order dated

29.02.2016 by one Harpal Singh, who claimed himself as the

purchaser of the land in question from the father of the petitioner

herein. It is also pertinent to mention here, that, father of the

petitioner had expired in the year 2012 and during his lifetime, no

claim whatsoever was made by one Harpal Singh on the land in

question. The petitioner was also not aware about the allotment

order (Annexure-1) dated 29.02.2016. The appeal of Harpal Singh

was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2016, on the ground that

he was a trespasser on the said land. Against the judgment/order

dated 05.05.2016, Harpal Singh further preferred the second

appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

5. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an

application for impleading him as the appellant No.2 in the array

of the party appellants.

6. After hearing both the parties, the leaned Board of Revenue,

Ajmer, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the original

allottee has not preferred any appeal and secondly, there is a

breach of allotment rules.

7. Being aggrieved of the impugned orders and the judgment

dated 29.02.2016, 05.05.2016 and 28.02.2020, the petitioner

prefers the instant writ petition.

[2023/RJJD/015330] (3 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

8. Learned counsel Mr. N.L. Joshi, representing the petitioner

submitted that:-

(a) Before allotting the land to the respondent No.2, the

allotting authority neither cancelled the allotment made in favour

of the father of the petitioner, nor did he gave any notice to the

legal representatives of one Bangali Ram, as he expired in the

year 2012.

(b) The impugned order Annexure-1 dated 29.02.2016 has

been passed against the dead persons which is void and suffers

from nullity in the eyes of law.

(c) The allotting authority has arbitrarily allotted the land

in question in favour of the respondent No.2 Smt. Amrati Devi

because, firstly, the land was not available for allotment and

secondly, complete allotment proceedings were done through the

power of attorney. The allottee Smt. Amrati Devi, never appeared

before the allotting authority.

(d) Due to wrong allotment and irregularity, the allotting

authority was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB).

(e) The subsequent allotment can only be made only on

those lands, which are undisputed and in this writ petition, the

said land in question does not comes in the category of

'undisputed land'.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, urges, that the writ

petition may be allowed and the impugned orders and the

judgment dated 29.02.2016, 05.05.2016 and 28.02.2020, be

quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

[2023/RJJD/015330] (4 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the private

respondent No.2, opposed the submissions advanced by the

petitioner's counsel and submitted that:-

(a) The writ petition is not maintainable on the face of the

record, because the petitioner was not a party in the matter filed

before the Learned Allotment Authority, Suratgarh and the

petitioner has not even filed the appeal before the learned

Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar.

(b) The petitioner has also not filed the application under

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and was even not a party in the matter

placed before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri

Ganganagar.

(c) One Harpal Singh has not filed any writ petition before

this Court being the main party from the start of this dispute.

(d) Vide judgment dated 16.07.1977 passed by the

competent authority, whereby the allotment of the agricultural

land in question, has been cancelled due to violation of Allotment

Rules 6(5) and 6(6) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and

Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Indira

Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the

Rules of 1972) and due to violation of these rules, the allotment of

the main allotee has been cancelled as per Rule 6(10) of the Rules

of 1972. Once the allotment of the original allottee has been

cancelled by the competent authority, there is no question of any

agreement through which the land can be transferred.

(e) The Allotment Officer and the S.D.O., Suratgarh, has

passed the order dated 29.02.2016 after considering all the facts

and the documents and also after conducting the required

[2023/RJJD/015330] (5 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

enquiries. Therefore, there is no question of giving any

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner because the land was

reserved for Pong Dam oustees and allotment of the original

allottee has been cancelled earlier by the competent authority.

(f) The land was allotted to the respondent No.2 on

29.02.2016 but after a gross delay of four years, the original

allottee Shri Bangali Ram did not raise any objection or appeal

before the competent authority, as he was aware of the fact that

his allotment has been cancelled. Even present petitioners did not

file any appeal against the impugned order dated 29.02.2016.

10. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.1-State also

opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and

submitted that:-

(a) The land in question was initially allotted to father of

the present petitioner Shri Bangali Ram on 24.12.1966. When the

respondent Department conducted a special survey regarding the

allotment of the land in question in favour of Bangali Ram, it came

to knowledge, that the allottee Bangali Ram was not in possession

of the land and was also not cultivating land in question and

further, it was transferred to one Mohan Singh Jat Sikh and he was

cultivating the said land. Thereafter, a case was registered against

the allottee in violation of the General Colony Conditions. The

allottee failed to appear before the competent authority and the

allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on 05.07.1974 by the

competent authority.

(b) The allottee Bangali Ram, filed an appeal before the

Additional Commissioner Colonization-cum-RAA in appeal

[2023/RJJD/015330] (6 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

No.754/1976 against the order dated 05.07.1974, which was

allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for

deciding the matter afresh after providing proper opportunity of

hearing to the allottee Bangali Ram, which was decided vide order

dated 16.07.1977 by stating therein, that Bangali Ram was not

cultivating the land in question but was cultivated by a third

person namely Mohan Singh who thereafter, confirmed the fact

that Bangali Ram was not residing over the said land in question

and the trial court was perfectly justified in stating that the

allottee violated the Rule 6(5) and Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1972

and an appeal was filed by one Additional Commissioner

Colonization-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority by Bangali Ram

was rejected on 22.06.1982.

(c) The applicant Bangali Ram further moved the

application before the allotting authority under Rule 8-A of the

amended Rules of 1972 and thereafter, the allotting authority

restored the allotment of the applicant Bangali Ram on

26.12.1985 on a condition to deposit the installments as er the

law within the prescribed time limit and further allotment order

was also issued on 09.01.1986 and the applicant was directed to

deposit the installments within 45 days to take the possession of

the land in question, but he failed to deposit the installments

within prescribed time limit and therefore, the restoration order

was automatically cancelled after a lapse of 45 days from the date

of the allotment order dated 09.01.1986 and thereafter, the

petitioner or the allottee never appeared before the competent

authority for allotment of land to the Pong Dam Oustees as per

the Rules of 1972 and therefore, the matter of respondent No.2

[2023/RJJD/015330] (7 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

was also considered for the allotment of the land as Pong Dam

Oustees and finally the land in question was allotted to the

respondent No.2 Amrati Devi as per the Rules of 1972 through the

order dated 29.02.2016. The son of Mohan Singh namely Harpal

Singh filed the appeal before the revenue appellate authority

against the order dated 29.02.2016 and submitted that the land in

question was purchased by the appellant through an agreement

on 19.12.1987 fro Bangali Ram and possession was also handed

over to the appellant and therefore, he prayed to cancel the

allotment of the respondent No.2.

(d) The writ petition has been filed by the son of original

allottee against the order of the Revenue Board, Ajmer, whereas

the first appeal was filed by Harpal Singh and second appeal wa

filed by Harpal Singh and Kishori lal jointly and now, the writ

petition has been filed by Kishori Lal, which is not permissible in

the eyes of law and even though, the cancellation order of Bangali

Ram became final and the present petitioner is not having any

legal right to challenge the allotment of the respondent No.2.

(e) The present petitioner filed this writ petition as being

legal representative of the original allottee Bangali Ram, whereas,

the land in question was never entered in the name of original

allottee as cancelled by the competent authority in violation of the

Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972 and even though, the first appeal was

filed by an attorney holder as well as agreement holder, who

submitted himself as a purchaser of the land and the second

appeal was also filed jointly by the agreement holder as well as by

the present petitioner and submitted to transfer the land to the

subsequent purchaser of Mohan Singh and Harpal Singh. After

[2023/RJJD/015330] (8 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

rejection of the appeals as per law, the instant writ petition was

filed by the legal representative by concealing the subsequent

facts. The land in question was never entered into the name of

original allottee and even though, the original allottee failed to

deposit the installments after providing the proper opportunity of

hearing and therefore, the cancellation of the allotment through

the order dated 16.07.1977 became final after rejection of the

first appeal on 22.06.1982 and the rejection was never challenged

before any competent court and after a lapse of 34 years of the

canellation, the land was further allotted to eligible person as per

the rules and thereafter, the allotment was challenged whereas,

the cancellation was never challenged before any competent

authority.

(f) The allottee Bangali Ram was not having any legal right

and title over the land in question and therefore, the appellate

authority held that the allottee never approached before any

competent authority and the land was rightly vested with the

State Government as Rakba Raj and therefore, the land was

rightly allotted to the respondent No.2 Amrati Devi as per the

Rules of 1972 and the appeal was rejected on 05.05.2016.

(g) The petitioner has invoked extraordinary writ

jurisdiction and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is not

maintainable. The present writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner as being the legal representative of the original allottee

Bangali Ram but, the land in question was never entered in the

name of the original allottee as it was cancelled by the competent

authority in violation of the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972.

[2023/RJJD/015330] (9 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

(h) The allottee was provided ample number of

opportunities of hearing and therefore, the allotment was

cancelled though a cancellation order dated 16.07.1977 and the

rejection was never challenged before any further competent

court/authority and after a lapse of 34 years of cancellation, the

land was allotted to the eligible person.

Learned counsel representing the respondents, thus, urged,

that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner, be dismissed

with costs.

11. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and the

learned counsel representing the respondents and perused the

material available on record.

12. This Court finds that the respondent authority cancelled the

allotment of the land in dispute on 05.07.1974 against which,

father of the petitioner preferred various remedies but both the

original authority as well as appellate authority gave a concurrent

finding, holding that the allotment of land in favour of father of the

petitioner was rightly cancelled. Thereafter, the allotting authority

restored the allotment in favour of Shri Bangali Ram on

26.12.1985 with a prerequisite condition to deposit the

installments within a period of 45 days and only thereafter Shri

Bangali Ram could take the possession of the land in dispute but

he failed to deposit the installments in the prescribed time limit

and thus, the order for restoration of the land automatically stood

cancelled. The petitioner's father did not challenge the said

cancellation and therefore, it attained finality. Thereafter, the

[2023/RJJD/015330] (10 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

respondents after adopting the due process of law, allotted the

land in dispute in favour of respondent No.2-Amrata Devi vide orer

dated 29.02.2016.

Harpal Singh, son of Mohan Singh, preferred an appeal

before the Revenue Appellate Authority, while challenging the

order dated 29.02.2016 with a prayer to cancel the allotment

order dated 29.02.2016. The appeal was rejected vide order dated

05.05.2016 and the same was challenged before the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer and the second appeal also came to be rejected

vide order dated 04.03.2020.

It is important to note, that the present writ petition has

been filed by the son of Bangali Ram (original allottee) whereas,

the land allotment order in favour of Bangali Ram, stood cancelled

automatically upon not fulfilling the condition preceding and which

was never challenged. Thus, the petitioner has no locus to

challenge the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer, particularly, when the land in question was never

entered in the name of Shri Bangali Ram.

The earlier orders by which, the land allotment orders were

cancelled against Shri Bangali Ram, were never challenged and

thus, having attained finality, the petitioner has no locus to

challenge the allotment order which was passed in favour of

respondent No.2-Amrati Devi at such a belated stage.

Therefore, I do not find any illegality and infirmity with the

order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure-3), passed by the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer, whatsoever warranting interference therein.

13. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, the

instant writ petition is dismissed. Stay application is also rejected.

[2023/RJJD/015330] (11 of 11) [CW-4750/2020]

14. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

15. No order as to costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

61-/Devesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)