Rajasthan High Court
Babu Lal Sain And Anr vs Board Of Revenue Ajmer And Ors ... on 18 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JP:39502]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 101/2004
1. Babu Lal Sain Son of Late Shri Gyarsi Lal Sain, aged
about 50 years, resident of village Bagru Kalan, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur.
2. Gopal Lal Sain son of Late Shri Gyarsi Lal Sain, aged
about 45 years, resident of Village Bagru Kalan, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Board Of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.
2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur.
3. Additional Collector (1st), Jaipur.
4. Tehsildar Sanganer, District Jaipur.
5. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
6. Krishi Sahakari Samiti Anya Jati, Bagru Kalan, through
is Secretary Sitaram Jhalani S/o Onkarmal, resident of
Bagru Kalan, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 100/2004
Mohanlal Sain S/o Late Shri Chouthmal Sain Since Deceased
Through His Legal Heirs-
----Petitioner
1. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.
2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur.
3. Additional Collector (Ist) Jaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Sanganer, District Jaipur.
5. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
6. Krishi Sahakari Samiti Anya Jati, Bagru Kalan through
its Secretary Sitaram Jhalani S/o Onkarmal resident of
Bagru Kalan, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6655/2003
1. Smt. Dhapu wife of Late Shri Gheesa son of Nanag
Ram.
2. Nortan
[2024:RJ-JP:39502] (2 of 4) [CW-101/2004]
3. Sua Lal
4. Gopal
5. Jagdish (Since deceased) through his legal
representatives:-
5/1. Smt. Pappu Devi
5/2. Puran Mal aged 15 years
5/3. Mahesh aged 13 years
5/4. Dinesh aged 11 years
No.5/2 to 5/4 through their mother and natural
guardian No.5/1.
No.2 to 5 are all sons of late Shri Gheesa son of Nanag
Ram.
All residents of village Bagru Kalan, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.
2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur.
3. Additional Collector (First), Jaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Sanganer, District Jaipur.
5. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
6. Krishi Sahkari Samiti Anya Jati Bagru Kalan, through
its Secretary Sitaram Jhalani son of Shri Onkarmal,
resident of Bagru Kalan, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal
Ms. Neetu Bhansali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC
Mr. Amit Kuri with
Mr. Harshvardhan Shekhawat &
Ms. Nandini Mirdha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Judgment
18/09/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:39502] (3 of 4) [CW-101/2004]
1. These petitions are decided by common order as facts and
issues involved are similar. For the sake of convenience, the facts
are being taken from S.B. CWP No.101/2004.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners are the members of
the Krishi Sahkari Samiti Anya Jati (hereinafter referred to as
"Society") of village Bagru Kalan Tehsil Sanganer. On 08.07.1959,
agricultural land measuring 319 bighas 5 biswas situated at village
Bagru Kalan was allotted in favour of the Society under the Land
Revenue (Allotment of Land to Cooperative Societies) Rules, 1959.
The society handed over possession of land to the members. On
an enquiry held by Commission headed by Retired Chief Justice,
cancellation of the allotment of the land in favour of the
Cooperative Society on account of violation of the terms and
conditions was recommended. Cancellation order was passed by
the Additional Collector-Ist, Jaipur dated 16.05.1997. The appeal
preferred by society was dismissed on 24.11.1997. The second
appeal before the Board of Revenue had similar fate. The order of
the Board of Revenue dated 25.09.2002 was assailed by the
Society by filing of SBCWP No.302 of 2007. The writ petition was
dismissed on 09.02.2007. The DB Special Appeal Writ No.545 of
2007 titled as Krishi Sahakari Samiti Anya Jati Versus Board of
Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. was dismissed on
02.11.2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are the members of the society and have been affected
by the cancellation of the allotment of the land to the society. The
contention is that there was no violation of terms and conditions
[2024:RJ-JP:39502] (4 of 4) [CW-101/2004]
and the respondent erred in cancelling the allotment after more
than thirty years.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
allotment was made to the Society for a specific purpose. On an
enquiry held it was found that the terms and conditions of
allotment were violated. The submission is that cancellation of the
allotment was upheld by Division Bench of High Court. The issue
of cancellation of allotment of land has attained finality.
5. It is undisputed fact that the land was allotted to the society
and the cancellation order was passed against the society. The
remedies against the cancellation of the allotment of land were
availed by the society. The cancellation order was upheld by the
Division Bench of this Court. There is nothing produce before this
Court that order of the Division Bench was challenged further.
6. The grievance in the present petitions is to the cancellation
order dated 16.05.1997, cancelling the allotment of land to the
Society. The order has been upheld by Division Bench of this Court
in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.545 of 2007 and has attained
finality, in such circumstances, no interference is called for.
7. The petitions are dismissed accordingly.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Chandan/8-9/S-1
Reportable: Yes
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
