Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Vinod Kanwar vs State And Ors on 4 April, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:11226-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 74/2010
Devi Singh (Deceased)
1/1 Raj Kumari Bhati d/o Late Shri Devi Singh ji Bhati, w/o late
Sh. Arvind Singh Ji Rathore, aged about 39 years, r/o Plot
No.180, 29 lane, BJS Colony, near RTO Office, Jodhpur.
1/2. Sangram Singh Bhati s/o Late Sh. Devi Singh Ji Bhati, aged
about 44 years, r/o Veer Durga Das colony, Parta B Road,
Jodhpur at present posted out of India.
1/3. Smt. Madhu Bhati d/o Late Sh. Devi Singh Ji Bhati, aged
about 41 years, r/o Veer Durga Das Colony, Parta B Road,
Jodhpur at present living out of India.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Shiv, District Barmer.
2. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer
3. Addl. Collector, Barmer
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 622/2011
Smt. Vinod Kanwar w/o Late Shri Hindu Singh, agged about r/o
Village Girab, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Shiv, District
Barmer.
2. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
3. The Additional Collector, Barmer.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.L. Purohit, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Hem Shankar Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with
Mr. Yogesh Sharma
(Downloaded on 07/04/2025 at 09:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:11226-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-74/2010]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Judgment
Reserved on 05/02/2025
Pronounced on 04/04/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant special appeals have been preferred against the
order dated 05.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.3146/1995 &
3147/1995, whereby the said two identical writ petitions preferred
by the appellants [writ petitioners - Devi Singh (since deceased
represented through LRs herein & Smt. Vinod Kanwar], though
arising out of different orders, but being interconnected, were
dismissed vide the said common impugned order.
2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that on
18.12.1978, the appellant-Devi Singh (writ petitioner) was allotted
certain land, admeasuring 193 bighas 18 biswas and Hindu Singh
(husband of appellant-writ petitioner Smt. Vinod Kanwar) was
allotted 118 bighas 1 biswa of land, under the category of landless
persons.
3. It was thereafter noticed that the aforesaid persons already
had a share in the lands by way of succession and thus, did not
fall in the category of landless persons. The Collector, while
considering the application submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer
in regard to the same, arrived at a finding that the said persons
were not landless persons; a finding which was further re-affirmed
by the learned Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single
[2025:RJ-JD:11226-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-74/2010]
Judge of this Hon'ble Court, dismissing the writ petitions of the
appellants vide the impugned order dated 05.11.2007.
4. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hem
Shankar Vyas appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that
the proceeding for cancellation of such allotment was wrongly
initiated being violative of Rule 17(4) of the Rajasthan Imposition
of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Rules, 1973, which required the
allotments to be cancelled only on the ground that they have been
secured by fraud, against the Rules and on breach of prescribed
conditions.
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there has
been no breach of the prescribed conditions in the present case as
a future notional share could not have been considered for
cancellation.
4.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the distribution
of property and succession was a matter of future happening and
thus, it could not have had an impact of depriving appellants of
their lawful right to allotment in the category of landless persons.
He has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 2(iii)(b) of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural
Purposes) Rules, 1970 in which 'Landless Agriculturist' has been
defined; the said Rule 2(iii)(b) of the Rules of 1970, reads as
under:
"2(iii)(b)- "Landless Agriculturist" means a resident of
Rajasthan who is either a bonafide agriculturist or an
agricultural laborers, and is equality or likely to cultivate
land personally, and whose main source of livelihood is
agriculture or any occupation which is subsidiary or
[2025:RJ-JD:11226-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-74/2010]
subservient to agriculture, and such person does not hold
any tenure land any where in Rajasthan or the area of such
land which he holds including any land which has been
previously allotted to him, is less than the area prescribed
in rule 12."
4.3. Learned Senior Counsel has also drew the attention of this
Court towards sub-section (26A) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955; which reads as follows:
"26(A) :- "Landless Person" shall mean an agriculturist by
profession who cultivates or an reasonably be expected to
cultivate land personally but who does not hold any land,
whether in his own name or in the name of any member of
his joint family, or holds a fragment."
5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Yogesh Sharma, appearing on
behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the appellants submitted that once
the original basis of the status of landless persons is lost, any
orders passed in favour of the State, cannot be undone.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
7. This Court has taken note of the fact that the learned Single
Judge of this Hon'ble Court has considered the factual matrix of
the case and the appellants having a notional share in the
property of their father. This Court is of the opinion that the
appellants do not fall in the definition "Landless Persons" in either
of the laws.
8. This Court observes that the learned Single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court has also dealt with the orders of the Revenue
[2025:RJ-JD:11226-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-74/2010]
authorities below and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that
Narayan Singh (father of deceased-appellant Devi Singh) was
having a share of about 197 bighas and thus, the notional share
between the sons was bound to follow.
9. In view of the above, the consecutive orders passed by
Collector, Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court do not call for any interference by this Court in the
instant appeals, as no fact has been brought on record by the
appellants, so as to persuade this Court to make such
interference.
10. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
