Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lrs Of Kala Singh vs The Rajasthan Revenue Board on 19 October, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:34088]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3608/2021

1.       Lrs Of Kala Singh, S/o Kan Singh B/c Rai Sikh R/o
         Kamraniya Tehsil Anoopgarh Distt. Sri Ganganagar ,
         Rajasthan.
2.       Bhajan Singh, Aged About 53 Years, S/o Of Late Shri Kala
         Singh B/c Rai Sikh R/o Kamraniya Tehsil Anoopgarh Distt.
         Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan.
3.       Ratan Singh, Aged About 54 Years, S/o Of Late Shri Kala
         Singh B/c Rai Sikh R/o Kamraniya Tehsil Anoopgarh Distt.
         Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan.
4.       Dula Singh, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Of Late Shri Kala
         Singh B/c Rai Sikh R/o Kamraniya Tehsil Anoopgarh Distt.
         Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan.
5.       Mohar Singh (Adopted Son Prabhat Singh), Aged About
         57 Years, S/o Of Late Shri Kala Singh B/c Rai Sikh R/o
         Kamraniya     Tehsil      Anoopgarh          Distt.      Sri     Ganganagar
         Rajasthan.
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       The Rajasthan Revenue Board, Through Its Chairman
         Revenue Board Rajasthan Ajmer
2.       The Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar
3.       Sub Divisional Officer Anoopgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar
         Rajasthan
4.       Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Vijaynagar, Distt. Sri
         Ganganagar
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Ripudaman Singh
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. I.S. Pareek



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                JUDGMENT

Reserved on:                     <      >                         09/10/2023
Pronounced on:                    <     >                         19/10/2023



 [2023:RJ-JD:34088]                        (2 of 12)                       [CW-3608/2021]

1. Though the matter is listed under 'Orders' Category but on

the request of the learned counsels for both the parties, the

matter is finally heard today itself.

2. The instant writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India, claiming following reliefs:

"It is therefore, prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed by an appropriate writ, order or direction: A. The orders dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Vijaynagar, Sri Ganganagar, order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) passed by RAA Sri Ganga-Nagar and order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by Revenue Board, Ajmer may kindly quash and set aside.

B. That order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by revenue board, Ajmer may kindly quash and set aside. C. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner; and D. Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners father

vide allotment order dated 21.08.1965 (Annexure-1) passed by

Dy. Colonization Officer, Bikaner was alloted 25 Bighas of

agricultural land in Chak 16 APD Tehsil Anoopgarh, Murraba No.

262/391 and upon the complaint filed by some private person, the

allotment of land was cancelled vide order dated 15.07.1976

(Annexure-2) passed by Respondent No. 4, under Section 11 (14)

of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act 1954').

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (3 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

4. The petitioner approached the Board of Revenue,

Respondent No. 1, against the cancellation of the allotment and

after which the Respondent No. 1 remanded the matter back to

the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No. 4, and directed the

Respondent No. 4 to carry out inspection and pass an order,

thereafter, an order dated 15.07.1976 was passed Deputy

Commissioner, Colonization, Respondent No. 4.

5. The petitioners father was discharged from the concerned

trial court vide order dated 03.05.1978 (Annexure-3) and

thereafter, the respondent authorities allotted the land in question

to one Sh. Munshiram.

6. The petitioner thereafter, challenged the order dated

15.07.1976 passed by Respondent No. 4, before Revenue

Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar Respondent No. 2, vide

Appeal No. 295/1991, which was dismissed vide order dated

16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) by Respondent No. 2.

7. The petitioners thereafter, aggrieved by the order dated

16.08.1996 passed by Respondent No. 2, preferred an appeal vide

Appeal No. Appeal/LR/147/96 before Board of Revenue,

Respondent No. 1, which was also dismissed vide order dated

13.02.2001 (Annexure-5).

8. The petitioners earlier preferred the writ petition SBCWP

2366/2019 before this Court and same was dismissed vide order

dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure-7) on the ground that the petitioners

have no right to remain in posession of the disputed land, which is

reproduced hereunder:

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (4 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

"By way of this writ petition, the petitioners- legal representatives of deceased Kalasingh, have questioned the legality of order dated 19.7.18 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the order dated30.1.06 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Sriganganagar, has been dismissed. By order dated 30.1.06, RAA has dismissed the appeal preferred by Kalasingh against the order dated 30.9.80 issued by the Allotting Authority, allotting the land measuring 22 bighas comprising Murabba No.262/391 Kila No. 1to 22 of Chak No.16 APD.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended thatt he allotment made in favour of the respondent No.4 ignoring the fact that the petitioners were in occupation of the land in question on the strength of the allotment made in favour of their father, is ex-facie illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the allotment order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization infavour of the respondent No.4 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who were in occupation of the land and thus, the allotment made being violative of principles of natural justice, deserves to be set aside for this reason alone. Indisputably, the allotment made in favour of Kalasingh, father of the petitioners, was cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 21.2.76, the legality whereof was not challenged by him by availing the appropriate remedy and the same attained finality. Obviously, after cancellation of the allotment, the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the land and therefore, proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("the Act") for eviction and vide order dated 20.10.03 passed therein, the petitioners were directed to be evicted from the disputed land. The appeal preferred by the father of the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and aggrieved thereby, the revision petition preferred was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue and thus, the order evicting the petitioners from the disputed land has attained finality. In this view of the matter, the petitioners have no

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (5 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

right whatsoever to remain in possession of the disputed land.

For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue declining the relief to the petitioners as prayed for, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."

9. The petitioners had preferred the application under Section

212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act of 1955') before SDO, Anoopgarh, wherein the SDO vide

order dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure-10) had allowed temporary

injunction application in favour of the applicants-petitioners and

also directed to not dispossess the petitioners without adopting

due legal process.

10. Hence, being aggrieved by the orders dated 15.07.1976

(Annexure-2) passed by Respondent No. 4, 16.08.1996

(Annexure-4) passed by Respondent No. 2 and 13.02.2001

(Annexure-5) passed by Respondent No. 1 has preferred the

instant writ petition.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents while raising

preliminary objections submitted that the petitioners secured the

allotment by means of stating the wrong facts and documents and

hence, the land allotment was cancelled by Respondent No. 4 vide

order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2).

12. The learned counsel for the respondent while raising

preliminary objections further submitted that the petitioners

pursued an appeal before Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which was

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (6 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

subsequently adjudicated and dismissed vide order dated

13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) and after which the petitioners

maintained a state of inaction, refraining from pursuing any

further legal avenues, therefore, the petition is liable to be

dismissed on this account of delay and laches.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent while raising

preliminary objections also submitted that after the cancellation of

the land by Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 15.07.1976

(Annexure-2), the allotting authority made the allotment of the

land in dispute Chak 16 APD Murba no. 262/391 Killa no. 1 to 22

rakba 22 bigha, to Munshiram S/o Nenuram vide order dated

30.09.1980 and further Munshiram deposited entire amount on

31.03.2006 and thereafter, the petitioners challenged the order of

the allotment made in favour of Munshiram before the Revenue

Appellate Authority by Appeal no. 117/2004, i.e; after 22 years,

and appeal vide order dated 30.01.2006 was dismissed on the

ground of delay of 22 years.

The learned Counsel for the respondent while raising preliminary

objections further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner

challenged the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority before

the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer

after hearing the parties and considering the material available on

the record, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.07.2018

and confirmed the order of the allotment made in favour of

Munshiram.

The learned counsel for the respondents while raising preliminary

objections also submitted that thereafter, the LRs. of petitioners

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (7 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

challenged the order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer before the Jaipur

bench of the this Court in SBCWP 19796/2018 and it was

dismissed with liberty to file fresh writ petition before Principal

seat Jodhpur and thereafter, SBCWP No. 2366/2019 was filed

before this Court which was dismissed on 08.07.2019 (Annexure-

7) and also SAW had been filed by the present petitioners before

this Court bearing SAW 1161/19 and which is still pending before

this Court, and all these facts have been concealed by the

petitioner with malafide intention and to mislead this Hon'ble

Court.

14. The learned counsel for the respondents while raising

preliminary objections also submitted that the land in dispute

Rakba 22 Bigha out of 25 Bigha had already been allotted to

Munshiram vide order dated 30.09.1980 and thereafter, khatedari

rights along with possession had also been given to Munshiram

dated 01.03.2019 and Munshiram is necessary party to the writ

petition but the petitioners intentionally did not implead the

subsequent allottee and khatedar Munshiram as a party to the writ

petition and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on

the ground of non joinder of the necessary party.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent while raising

preliminary objection further submitted that the petitioners filed

the suit with application for temporary injunction before the SDO

Anoopgarh, after dismissal of the SBCWP No. 2366/19 vide order

dated 08.07.2019 and concealed a very important fact that a Writ

Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated

08.07.2019 (Annexure-7) and stay order was granted in their

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (8 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

favour vide order dated 25.01.2021 but after service of the

notices in this writ petition upon the SDO Anupgarh, the stay

application was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2021 as per the

finding of this Court dated 08.07.2019 and thus, the petition is

liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that:

(A) the respondent authority had alloted the land in favour of the

father of petitioners in 1965 and it was upon the fake complaint

made by some private person, upon which the land allotment was

cancelled and thereafter, the trial court vide order dated

08.08.1976 discharged the petitioners father from the allegations

levelled and hence the order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) is

liable to be quashed.

(B) when the father of the petitioners was alive, the parchi

barabandi was issued by the concerned authority in the name of

petitioners father. The petitioners also have that document along

with the certificate issued by concerned Gram Panchayat which

showed that the petitioners had the possession of the land in

question since the allotment was made in favour of the petitioners

father and also had inspection report which shows that the

petitioners are tenant in the Chak 16 APD P. No. 262/391 Murraba

No. 4. The inspection report also mentions that the petitioners

are still in possession of 5.566 hectares command agriculture land

and the petitioners are the agriculturists.

applicants who was allotted the land in question along with the

petitioners father and thereafter, the applicant Sardar Singh was

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (9 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

allotted 25 bighas of land and against Sardar Singh also, the

vague complaint was filed, wherein he was also discharged by the

concerned trial court. The Board of Revenue had allowed the

appeal and directed to concerned court to confirm the order dated

05.07.1976 to the extent of petitioners, and the case of the sardar

singh not disguised to the petitioner father however appellant

authority on the same account the petitioners father appeal was

dismissed without application of mind the although aspects of the

case are not consider by the RAA and revenue board therefore

orders impugned deserve to be quash and set aside.

(D) the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the land

since 1965 is clearly mentioned in the Patwari report, however,

due to lack of knowledge, there has been delay in filing this writ

petition and therefore, this Court may condone the delay.

17. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that:

(A) the order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) passed by

Respondent No. 4, was passed after consideration of the facts of

the case, material available on record and law applicable in this

matter and after making proper inquiry as per direction of the

Board of Revenue, Ajmer, and the Appeals preferred by the

petitioners was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority

vide order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) and Board of Revenue

vide order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) and hence the petition

is liable to be dismissed.

18. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (10 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

19. This Court finds that the Respondent No.4 cancelled the

allotment of land of the petitioner vide order dated 15.07.1976

(Annexure-2), against which the petitioner preferred an appeal in

Appeal No.294/91 before Revenue Appellate Authority,

Respondent No. 2, in the year 1991 and there has been no

prudent reason assigned for the delay of 15 years.

20. This Court further observes that the Respondent No.2, while

rejecting the appeal vide order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4)

has stated that the petitioner obtained the allotment by producing

wrong documents to the alloting authorities and hence the

allotment cancelled by Respondent No.4 vide order dated

15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) was valid and in accordance with law.

The relevant portion of the order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4)

passed by Respondent No.2 is reproduced hereunder:

"उपरोक्त विबेचन अनुसार यह स्वष्ट है कि कालासिंह पुत्रकानसिंह के नाम से जो आवंटन किया गया है उस आवंटन हे तु जो परिचय प्रमाणवत्र पेश किया गया था वह इस अपील के अबीलां ट का नहीं है जिससे यह तथ्य राजस्व अपील प्राधिकष्ट है कि उक्त आवंटन अबीलां ट द्वारा किसी अन्य कालासिं ह नामक श्रीगंगानगर व्यक्ति का उपयोग करके करवाया गया है अतः ऐसे आवंटन को उपनिवेशन अधि0 की धारा 11/14 के तहत निरस्त किये जाने में कोई त्रुटि प्रतीत नहीं होती है अतः उक्तानुसार अपील अपीलां टखारिज की जाती है । आदे श आज दिनां क 16/08/96 को मेरे द्वारा लिखवाया जाकर खुले न्यायालय में सुनाया गया।"

21. This Court also observes that the Respondent No.1 while

dismissing the appeal vide order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5)

has held as below:

"8. यह सही है कि विवादित आराजी का आवंटन 7. 8.65 की अपीलार्थी को किया गया था, परन्तु यह आवंटन 21.2.76 को निरस्त किया गया था। हालां कि अपीलार्थी की भूमि आवंटित हुए काफी समय

[2023:RJ-JD:34088] (11 of 12) [CW-3608/2021]

हो गया है , परन्तु यह विचारणीय है कि शिकायत के उपरान्त हर बार जां च में यह निष्कर्ष निकाला कि अपीलार्थी द्वारा गलत बयानी करके किसी अन्य व्यक्ति के रिफूजी प्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर भूमि आवंटित कराई गई थी । अपीलार्थी का प्रकरण दो बार राजस्व मण्डल द्वारा जाँ च एवं पुनः निर्णय हे तु प्रतिप्रेषित किया गया । पुनः जाँ च एवं निर्णय में भी यह निष्कर्ष निकाला कि अपीलार्थी का आवंटन सही आधार पर निरस्त किया गया था । जपीलार्थी इतने अवसर मिलने के बाद भी यह साबित नहीं कर पाया कि उसके द्वारा भूमि का आवंटन सही तथ्य प्रस्तुत करके करवाया गया था एवं ना ही वे यह साबित कर पाया है कि जां च के दौरान पाये गये तथ्य गलत है । जपीलार्थी के पक्ष में कोई ऐसा तथ्य नहीं है , जिससे उसको लाभ मिल सकता हो एवं यह भी स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा गलत तथ्यों के आधार पर आवंटन करवाया गया हो एवं जपलान्ट को विदित राजी का आवंटन किसी तकनीकी कारण से निरस्त नहीं किया गया है , तो ऐसे मामले में प्रार्थी को कई साल पूर्व हुए आवंटन एवं कब्जेकारत का लाभ दे ना उचित प्रतीत नहीं होता है । अभिभाषक अपीलान्ट द्वारा प्रस्तुत नजीरों के तथ्य इस मामले के तथ्य है भी भिन्न है । अतः इनका लाभ भी अपीलान्ट को नहीं मिल सकता |