Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raghunath vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 November, 2015
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8852/2014
Raghunath
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order : 19.11.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. S.L. Jain for the petitioner
BY THE COURT :
This petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner as per Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 questioning correctness of the judgment dated 09.10.2003 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Shriganganagar.
The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the allotting authority by an order dated 11.03.1992 allotted a piece of land measuring 3 Bighas and 6 Biswas to the petitioner and a necessary Sanad to this effect was also granted. A challenge to the same was given by Mr. Natthuram [2] by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the appeal in part on the count that the appellant is also having land adjacent to the small patch and therefore, he is a person aggrieved, thus, is entitled to be heard before allotment of small patch to any other person. The allotting authority after hearing Mr. Natthuram maintained the decision earlier taken on 11.03.1992 by an order dated 12.05.1994. Mr. Natthuram assailed validity of this order too by way of filing an appeal, that came to be accepted with a direction that the land, which is said to be small patch, be sold by way of auction. A challenge to the same was given by Mr. Natthuram by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, that came to be dismissed vide the order dated 08.02.2001. By an order dated 18.06.2001, the allotting authority sold the land to respondent Mr. Natthuram by observing as under :-
"उक आदश ददन क 3.9.96 क व रद र जन म नन य
जस मण ल अजम म हन प उनह!न अपन आदश दद०
8.2.2001 क द र जन क ख र ज क त ह&ए जस
अप ल अध)० श गग नग क आदश दद. 3.9.96 क बह ल
ख ए जस अप ल अध)० श गग नग द भ. म म क
जर य ननल म स व कय ककय ज न क ननद4 श क यथ त
खत ह&ए म मल क प&न: स&न ई हत& अध)नसथ नय य लय
क मभज य । प&न: स&न ई हत. म मल इस नय य लय म
प पत ह न प पकक न क जर य न द<स तलब ककय गय ।
प थ= )&न थ ददन क 8.5.2001 क उपससथत आय । उसक
[3]
पश त ननल म हत. ददन क 6.6.2001, 12.6.2001 ए
18.6.2001 ननसशत क@ गई प नत& प थ= उपससथत नहA आय सजसस सपष ज दह ह त हC कक प थ= ननल म म तथ भ.मम आ <न म क ई रधD नहA खत । अत: प थ= क सम लपD क प थEन पत नन सत ककय ज त हC । ज० उप० अध)० पर ० 1997 ननयम 14(2) क अन&स "यदद एक स अध)क अमभ) A उस छ < भ. ख ण क मलए आ दन क त हC त आ <न उस म& बब क अमभ) A क ककय ज ग ।" Dकक . अब एक हA आ दक बDत हC अनय क ई आ दक नहA हC तथ आ दक अप थ=गण क आ द<त भ.मम Dक 8 एन. . क म&० न० 61/19 म हA सम ल पD क@ भ.मम हC ।"
Aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2001, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Shriganganagar, which came to be dismissed on 09.10.2003. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority after examining the record affirmed the finding of fact given by the allotting authority. The appeal preferred as per Section 76 of the Act of 1956 before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer by the petitioner also came to be dismissed on 19.08.2011. To challenge the same, the instant petition for writ is preferred.
The submission of learned counsel is that the court below failed to appreciate that no auction proceedings took place on 23.04.2001, 08.05.2001, 21.05.2001 and 06.06.2001. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on the dates concerned, the petitioner was present, but the [4] allotting authority without conducting any auction proceedings allotted the land to respondent Mr. Natthuram, who is now represented by his legal representatives.
Having considered the argument advanced and the order dated 18.06.2001 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Anoopgarh, the order dated 09.10.2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Shriganganagar and the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, I do not find any just reason to interfere in the matter by invoking writ jurisdiction of this court. From perusal of the orders impugned, it is apparent that a finding of fact is given by the original court on basis of the record available and that does not suffer from any such wrong, that may warrant interference to invoke writ jurisdiction to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and also to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition, as such, is having no force; hence, dismissed.
[GOVIND MATHUR],J.
Pramod