Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Diwan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 17 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)WLN127
Author: V.G. Palshikar
Bench: V.G. Palshikar
JUDGMENT V.G. Palshikar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 20.11.91 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and maintained the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities including the Board of Revenue.
2. Banta Singh father of petitioner-appellant Diwan Singh was having 31/2 Bighas of land situated in Square No. 33 in Chak 28-H of tehsil Sri Karanpur (district Sri Ganganagar). A small patch of 4 Bighas 9 Biswas of land adjoining to the land of the petitioner, was in the temporary cultivation of Banta Singh. This land was a government land. Banta Singh, therefore, applied for the allotment of four Bighas of land being a small patch of land, to him.
3. One Indra Singh, whose land was situated in the same square, also, applied for allotment of the land in his favour being a small patch of land. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, by his order dated 4.6.68 sold this land @Rs. 1500/- per Bigha in favour of Indra Singh, Banta Singh filed an application before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar on 12.6.68 stating therein that this land has been wrongly allotted to Indra Singh as Indra Singh already held fifty Bighas of land in his possession. The application filed by Banta Singh was rejected by the Collector by his order dated 12.6.68. Banta Singh filed a review petition before the collector, Sri Ganganagar. That review petition was allowed by the learned Collector and the order dated 12.6.68 was quashed and set-aside and the small patch of land was sold in favour of Banta Singh.
4. Indra Singh filed an appeal against this order before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, which was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 2.8.69 and the case was remanded to the Collector to decide it in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. After the remand, the matter was heard and decided by the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who maintained the order dated 31.5.69 passed in favour of Banta Singh.
5. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Additional Collector, Indra Singh filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, which was dismissed by the order dated 11.5.72. The appeal filed by Indra Singh before the Board of Revenue was, however, allowed by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 22.11.75 and the case was remanded to the Additional Collector to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and, also, after making an enquiry whether on 5.12.72 when the order was passed by the Collector, Banta Singh was alive or not. The Additional Collector, by his order dated 14.4.80 held that Banta Singh died before 4.12.72 and the application filed by him, therefore, stood abated.
6. Dissatisfied with the order dated 14.4.80, Diwan Singh (the present appellant), being the legal heir and son of deceased Banta Singh filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.12.82. The second appeal filed by Diwan Singh against the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was, also, dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 21.6.88. Aggrieved with the order dated 21.6.88 passed by the Board of Revenue, Diwan Singh filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment/order dated 20.11.96 and it is against this order that the appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. The Additional Collector set-aside the allotment made in favour of Banta Singh on the ground that on the date when the allotment was made, Banta Singh was dead and therefore no allotment of land could have been made in his favour. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue, also, dismissed the appeals filed by Diwan Singh on the. same ground. The learned Single Judge did not interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Revenue Authorities. When the application of Banta Singh for the allotment of land, being a small patch of land, was pending, an application is said to have been moved by petitioner-appellant Diwan Singh before the Collector for allotment of this land stating therein that his father Banta Singh is dead and the allotment of land be made in his favour. That application appears to have not been considered and decided by the Collector and the Appellate Authorities have, also, not taken note of this fact. It appears that the allotment was sought by the appellant-petitioner in his own capacity being the son and legal heir of Banta Sing.
8. The non-consideration of the application of appellant-petitioner may have prejudiced his case. So far as cancellation of allotment made in favour of Banta Singh is concerned, that was rightly made by the Additional Collector and was rightly up-held by the appellate Revenue Authorities. The order cancelling the allotment in favour of Banta Singh, therefore, does not require any interference.
9. But so far as the case of the appellant-petitioner is concerned, his application was required to be considered by the Additional Collector while deciding the application filed by Banta Singh. If any application, which is said to have been moved by the appellant-petitioner for permanent allotment of the land in his favour as well as for impleading him as the legal heir of Banta Singh, was pending before the Additional Collector on 5.12.72 and was not disposed-of upto that day then it should have been disposed of by the Additional Collector alongwith the application of Banta Singh. We therefore, think it proper to direct the Additional Collector to decide the application of the appellant-petitioner if it was moved before him on or before 5.12.72 and was not decided on or before that day and was pending. If that has not been subsequently decided then the same may be decided by the Additional Collector after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
10. With these observations, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is disposed of.