Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan State Of ... on 6 April, 2018
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.26 OF 2008
RAM KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Sohan Lal owned agricultural land. He through his son-in-law Jora Ram applied for allotment of a small patches of land adjoining his land under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules, 1975. In fact, two applications were filed and Sohan Lal was allotted two small patches, one measuring 2 bighas 18 biswas and the second measuring 4 bighas.
Later, a notice was sent to Sohan Lal that since the land allotted to him fell in a different Murabba than the land owned by him, the allotment was liable to be cancelled.
Reply was filed and it was shown that in fact the land fell in the same Murabba. However, the Authority took up a new ground that the land in excess of 5 bighas Signature Not Verified could not have been allotted to him and also that Jora Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2018.04.10 16:55:37 IST Reason: Ram had not been duly authorized to file the application. On these two grounds, the allotment was set aside. The 2 appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed and finally he approached the High Court which dismissed his writ petition.
The main ground which weighed with the High Court was that the appellants could not have been allotted more than 5 bighas.
As far as the objection of Jora Ram being not authorised to file the application is concerned, it is not in dispute that Jora Ram was the son-in-law of Sohan Lal and Appellant No.1 - Ram Kumar is the grandson of Sohan Lal and son of Jora Ram. This is only a technical objection which can be and is overruled. After examining the Rules, we are of the view that only one patch of land could have been allotted and the appellants have filed an affidavit dated 1st February, 2018 stating that they are willing to retain the small patch comprising of 4 bighas of agricultural land. The High Court and the Authority below erred in cancelling the entire allotment when the ground was that Sohan Lal could not be allotted more than 5 bighas. At least one of the allotments had to be upheld. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the appeal and hold that the appellants shall be entitled to possession of a small patch of land measuring 4 bighas of land which was allotted to Sohan Lal vide order dated 27.03.1985.
3
The possession of the land be handed over to the appellants within eight weeks.
.............................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) .............................J. (DEEPAK GUPTA) NEW DELHI APRIL 06, 2018 4 ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).26/2008 RAM KUMAR & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 06-04-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR Ms. Ila Haldia, Adv.
Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Anish Roy, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)