Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ami Lal vs Board Of Revenue Ajmer & Ors on 9 August, 2016
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016
Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016
Ami Lal
V/S
Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.
Date of order : 09th August, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr S.L.Jain ]
Mr Abhinav Jain ] for petitioners
Mr D.S.Rajvi ]
Mr Rajesh Saharan ] for respondent No.4/1
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, whereby the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.09.2000 passed by the Allotment Advisory Committee has been dismissed.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 2 The petitioner has also challenged the proceedings of the Allotment Advisory Committee dated 18.09.2000, whereby it decided to allot 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak No.5 KD of Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar to one Maghi Bai.
The first appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.09.2000 was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.05.2006 and the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 25.05.2006 has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 30.11.2015.
This Court vide order dated 06.07.2016 granted time to the counsel for the petitioner to satisfy how the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority under section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in brevity 'the Act of 1956' hereinafter) and before the Board of Revenue under section 76 of the Act of 1956 are maintainable in relation to the proceedings under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonisation S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 3 (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (in brevity 'the Rules of 1975' hereinafter). This Court raised the said quarry in view of sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975, which provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the allotting authority, in relation to the allotment of land under the Rules of 1975, may within 30 days from the date of such order can prefer an appeal to the Colonisation Commissioner. Sub-Rule(2) provides that any person aggrieved by a final order of the Colonisation Commissioner whether passed in appeal or otherwise, may within 60 days of date of such order, file revision before the Board of Revenue.
This Court was of the view that when essentially the petitioner has questioned the allotment of 25 Bighas of the land to Maghi Bai under the provisions of Rules of 1975 and as per Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975, the said allotment can be questioned by way of filing of an appeal before the Colonisation Commissioner and further against the order of the Colonisation S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 4 Commissioner, a revision can be preferred, then how the appeals filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue respectively under the provisions of the Act of 1956 are maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact no such objection regarding maintainability of the appeals was raised by the private respondents or by the State Government before the Revenue Appellate Authority or before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, now after the final decision by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue, this writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non- maintainability of the appeals filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of this Court rendered in Dhokal Ram vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer reported in 1986(1) WLN 40 and argued that as per section 5 of the Colonisation Act, the appeals preferred by the petitioner S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 5 before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue respectively were very much maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Revenue Appellate Authority was exercising the powers of the Colonisation Commissioner as per the notification issued by the competent authority and, therefore, even if the petitioner has filed the appeal against it under section 75 of the Act of 1956, it cannot be said to be irregular. He has further submitted that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 23, the Board of Revenue has the power to hear the revision against the order of the Colonisation Commissioner cum Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, even if the petitioner has filed the appeal under section 76 before it, the same cannot be said to be irregular and it can be treated that the revision was filed while mentioning a wrong provision. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court can also treat the second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue as revision and convert it into the same as such.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 6 In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath Deb, AIR 1999 SC 2089; Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128; Ram Prasad Rajak vs. Nand Kumar & Bros., AIR 1998 SC 2730; Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc; Ratan Singh Rathore; Vikram Cement vs. Vikram Cement Etc; Vikram Cement; Hemant Kumar Jain, AIR 2008 SCW 7923; Col Anil Kak vs. Municipal Corporation Indore, AIR 2007 SCW 1104 and Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. Sabnife Power Systems Ltd., 2002(9) SCC 389.
It is not in dispute that neither the State nor the private respondents have raised any objection regarding maintainability of the appeals filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue. The courts below have also not raised any objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals filed by the petitioner. Hence, in such circumstances, without going into this aspect of the matter, I S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 7 have decided to examine the case on merits keeping the question of maintainability of such appeals left open to be decided in some appropriate proceedings.
Facts necessary for adjudication of present case are that Maghi Bai filed an application under section 15AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in brevity, the Act of 1955' hereinafter) before the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhatargarh No.1 in the year 1980 with a prayer for conferment of khatedari rights upon her for 75 Bighas of land of Chak 5KD and Chak 1 BPSD falling in Murabba Nos.170/64, 191/1 171/57 and Murabba No.191/1 respectively. The said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 20.03.1985. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20.03.1985, Maghi Bai preferred an appeal before the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner for deciding her claim afresh.
Meantime, power of conferment of khatedari rights under section 15AAA of the Act of 1955 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 8 were given to the Tehsilder concerned and the matter was taken up by Tehsildar, Gharsana. The Tehsildar, Gharsana rejected the application of Maghi Bai vide order dated 01.06.1994.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.06.1994, Maghi Bai filed an appeal before the Additional District Collector, Sri Gangangar, who vide order dated 02.05.2000 partly allowed the said appeal and held that Maghi Bai has failed to prove her possession over the said land prior to year 1955, however, her cultivatory possession over the demanded land is proved after the year 1955 and, therefore, she is entitled for allotment of 25 Bighas of land on payment and held that remaining 50 Bighas of land be resumed in the State.
The Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar quashed the order dated 01.06.1994 passed by the Tehsildar Gharsana and ordered for permanent allotment of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.171/57 of Chak 5KD on payment to Smt. Maghi Bai. Thereafter, she moved an application before the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar and prayed that she may be allotted S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 9 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 instead of Murabba No.171/57. The Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar disposed of the said application vide order dated 16.06.2000 and ordered that the petitioner may be allotted 25 Bighas of land in Murabba No.170/64 instead of Murabba No.171/57, however, he modified his earlier order dated 02.05.2000 while observing that since the allotment is to be made by the Allotment Advisory Committee, the case of Smt. Maghi Bai be placed before the said committee, which would allot the land to her after receiving an application from her. Pursuant to the direction of the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 16.06.2000, the Allotment Advisory Committee allotted 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD to the petitioner vide order dated 18.09.2000.
The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.09.2000 before the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 on 27.08.2004. Along with the said appeal, an application under S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 10 Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. The Revenue Appellate Authority has condoned the delay in filing the appeal, however, vide order dated 25.05.2006 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner while observing that since the 25 Bighas of land was allotted to Smt. Maghi Bai as per the orders passed by Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar on 02.05.2000 and 16.06.2000 and the petitioner has already challenged the validity of the said orders before the Board of Revenue by way of revision, in such circumstances, no interference is called for in decision of Allotment Advisory Committee of allotting 25 Bighas of land to Smt. Maghi Bai of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.05.2006, the petitioner had filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 76 of the Act of 1956, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2015. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact the allotment to Smt. Maghi Bai of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 11 Chak 5KD was in clear violation of provisions of Rules of 1975, hence, the same is not liable to be sustained. It is further argued that the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue have altogether ignored this aspect and illegally upheld the allotment made in favour of Smt. Maghi Bai. It is also argued that the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue are not speaking and reasoned orders and, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.
In support of the above contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tutul Kumari Sen Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2009 SCW 4445.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the largesse of the State cannot be disbursed at the whims of the authorities and if the allotment of a land made to any person is arbitrary and not transparent, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 12 rendered in Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1996 (6) SCC 530 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SCW 2346.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in a revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, he moved an application on 12.10.2001 with a prayer that the thumb impressions of Smt. Maghi Bai affixed on the application under Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955 as well as on the power of attorney executed in favour of one Sahab Ram, are different and, therefore, the same may be sent for examination to the Hand Writing Expert. It is submitted that ultimately the said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 05.08.2003, against which the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4967/2003 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2003 while observing that "The SDO while comparing, if S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 13 requires the documents, which the petitioner filed, are necessary, the petitioner may plead before SDO who may call for those documents from concerned office / court." It is submitted that against the order dated 27.08.2003, Smt. Maghi Bai had preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.598/2003 before the Division Bench of this Court, however, during the pendency of the appeal, Smt. Maghi Bai died and an application was moved on behalf of the respondent No.4/1 Mahesh Kumar through general power of attorney holder Sahab Ram for substitution of him in place of Smt. Maghi Bai and the said appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.10.2010 with the observations that the main and ancillary questions involved in relation to the land are to be tried by the Board of Revenue in the pending revision, then in such circumstances it would be just and proper to direct the Board of Revenue to decide the said revision finally on merits after affording an opportunity to all parties concerned in accordance with law. It is also observed that during the pendency of this S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 14 litigation Smt. Maghi Bai died and, therefore, effect of her death and the persons who claim to be her legal representatives shall also be decided by the Board of Revenue while deciding the said revision on merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the Division Bench of this Court has given a specific direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the question regarding the legal representatives of Smt. Maghi Bai, but the Board of Revenue while passing the order dated 30.11.2015 did not decide the question of legal representatives of Smt. Maghi Bai and as such not complied with the direction given by this Court. It is prayed that in view of the fact that the Board of Revenue did not decide the revision petition as per the directions given by this Court, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside on this ground also.
In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Bharat Builder Private Ltd. Vs. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 15 Parijat Flat Owners Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. reported in JT (1999)(9) SC 123 and Bharat Earth Movers Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnataka reported in AIR 2000 SC 2636 and the decisions of this Court rendered in Chote Lal Vs. Kalyan Prasad reported in AIR 1987 (Raj.) 75 and Chandanmal Vs. Rawatmal reported in AIR 1980 (Raj.) 139.
Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Board of Revenue has illegally observed that the status of petitioner is of a trespasser only. It is argued that the petitioner is in possession of land as a subtenant and he cannot be termed as trespasser. It is prayed that said findings of the Board of Revenue be set aside.
On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 30.11.2015 is liable to be set aside.
A detailed reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondent No.4/1 caveator. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4/1 has argued that in fact the S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 16 petitioner has no locus to challenge the allotment of 25 Bighas of land to Smt. Maghi Bai because there is no illegality in the allotment of 25 Bighas of land to Smt. Maghi Bai by the Allotment Advisory Committee. It is also argued that Smt. Maghi Bai was entitled for allotment of 25 Bighas of land and, therefore, the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar had rightly ordered for allotment of the said land to her. It is further argued that the Allotment Advisory Committee after following the due procedure had allotted 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 to deceased Smt. Maghi Bai and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said land was illegally allotted to her. It is also argued that though the Division Bench of this Court had given a direction to the Board of Revenue to take a decision regarding the claim of respondent No.4/1 that whether he is legal representative of deceased Smt. Maghi Bai or not, but as no objection was ever raised by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue has rightly treated the respondent No.4/1 as legal representative of S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 17 deceased Smt. Maghi Bai.
It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent No.4/1 that the petitioner is claiming his right over 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 on the ground that he was in possession of the said land as Smt. Maghi Bai has gave him the said land for cultivation way back in the year 1965 and he is cultivating the said land as subtenant, therefore, he became Khatedar of the above mentioned land on the basis of adverse possession.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4/1 has further submitted that the petitioner has also come out with the case that he has already filed a suit for declaration in the Court of Dy. District Collector, Anoopgarh with a prayer for declaring him Khatedar of 25 Bighas of land allotted to Smt. Maghi Bai, however, from the perusal of Revenue Suit No.67/1988 filed by the petitioner before the Dy. District Collector, Anoopgarh, it is clear that he had not prayed for declaring him as Khatedar of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD, and prayed for declaring S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 18 him as Khatedar of land of Murabba Nos.170/64, 171/54 of Chak 5KD and 191/1 of Chak 1BPSB only. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4/1 has, therefore, submitted that from any point of view the claim of the petitioner for the land in question cannot be said to be maintainable as he has not prayed for declaring himself as Khatedar of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD and as such is not entitled to get any relief from this Court.
In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/1 has placed reliance on the decision of this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in Guman Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 1998 (1) RLR 328. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4/1 has also referred several decisions regarding the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in respect of right of person on the basis of adverse possession, however, I am not inclined to refer all those decisions as in my opinion the said decisions are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 19 involved in this writ petition.
In response to the argument of learned counsel for the respondent No.4/1, the petitioner had not sought any declaration from the Revenue Court to declare him as Khatedar of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD, learned counsel for the petitioner filed an additional affidavit of Jagdish S/o Ami Lal dated 27.07.2016, in which it is averred that though the petitioner has filed a revenue suit in the Court of Dy. District Collector, Anoopgarh in the year 1998, but the record of the said suit was destroyed in fire took place during Kisan agitation in the year 2004 and, therefore, the petitioner filed a fresh revenue suit before the Dy. District Collector, Gharsana in the year 2005 and in the said suit, he prayed that he may be declared as Khatedar of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD along with the other land, which was mentioned in the suit filed by him in the year 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that since the petitioner had already filed a suit for declaring him Khatedar and S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 20 prayed for granting him Khatedari rights for 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD, he cannot be non-suited on the ground that he had not sought Khatedari rights of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that on 08.09.2000, when 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 was alotted to Smt. Maghi Bai, the petitioner did not claim Khatedari rights in the said land. He had filed a revenue suit in the Court of Dy. District Collector, Anoopgarh for declaring him as Khatedar of 58 Bigha land falling in Murabba No.151/54, 171/57 and 191/1 of Chak 5KD and the same is evident from perusal of the photostat of revenue suit filed by the petitioner, copy of which is annexed with the reply of the respondent No.4/1 as Annexure-R/4/1/1. The Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar vide order date 02.05.2000 found that Smt. Maghi Bai is entitled for allotment of 25 Bighas of land on payment as she has proved S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 21 her possession over the land of Murabba Nos.170/64, 171/57 and 191/1 Chak 5KD and Murabba No.191/1 of Chak 1BPSB. Initially, the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar ordered for allotment of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.171/57 to Smt. Maghi Bai, however, later on, while allowing the application of Smt. Maghi Bai, has observed that the land of Murabba No.170/64 measuring 25 Bighas be allotted to her. The Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar while passing the order dated 16.06.2000 also observed that since the allotment is to be made by the Allotment Advisory Committee, it directed the Allotment Advisory Committee to allot the land to Smt. Maghi Bai after completing the formalities.
Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955 is regarding the accrual of Khatedari rights in Indra Gandi Canal Area. The land alloted to Smt. Maghi Bai falls in Indra Gandi Canal Area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to how Smt. Maghi Bai was not entitled for allotment of 25 Bighas of land on the basis of her possession over the said S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 22 land after the year 1955 as per the provisions of Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955.
In respect to the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the allotment of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 Chak 5KD in favour of Smt. Maghi Bai was not in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1975, this Court is of the opinion that once the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar has found Smt. Maghi Bai entitled for allotment of 25 Bighas of land, he could have ordered for conferment of Khatedari rights to Smt. Maghi Bai himself but instead of it if he has directed the Allotment Advisory Committee to allot her 25 Bighas of land after completing the formalities then also it cannot be held that he has committed any illegality. Once the entitlement of Smt. Maghi Bai for allotment of land was established it cannot be cancelled on mere technicalities.
Moreover, except the petitioner, no other person has objected the allotment of 25 Bighas of land to Smt. Maghi Bai. The petitioner has also not claimed for declaration of Khatedari S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 23 rights of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD in the revenue suit filed by him in the year 1998, though, in the year 2005 by way of fresh revenue suit he sought declaration of Khatedari rights for land allotted to Smt. Maghi Bai along with other lands, but fact remains that at the time of allotment of 25 Bighas of land of Murabba No.170/64 Chak 5KD in the year 2000 no claim of the petitioner was pending for such land.
So far as argument of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the Board of Revenue did not decide the revision petition as per the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2010 is concerned, I do not find any merit in this argument because the petitioner has not raised any objection about the substitution of the respondent No.4/1 as legal representative of late Smt. Maghi Bai before the Board of Revenue then there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to decide the said question. If any objection was raised by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue about the substitution of S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 24 respondent No.4/1 as legal representative of late Smt. Maghi Bai and if the Board of Revenue would not have decided the same, then only it can be concluded that the Board of Revenue has not decided the revision petition as per the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court. However, as stated earlier, when the petitioner did not raise any objection about the substitution of respondent No.4/1 as legal representative of late Smt. Maghi Bai before the Board of Revenue, it has no occasion to decide the said question.
Apart from that the petitioner has failed to clarify that in which proceedings the revision was filed before the Board of Revenue in which the order dated 12.10.2001 was passed. In the present case no order of the Board of Revenue passed in any revision petition is under challenge. The order under challenge is passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal which was filed in the year 2006 itself. From the above also it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order without complying the directions issued by this Court S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 25 and in view of that the decisions rendered in the cases of Bharat Builder Private Ltd. (supra), Bharat Earth Movers (supra), Chote Lal (supra) and Chandanmal (supra) are of no help to the petitoiner.
As observed earlier, the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court that the deceased Smt. Maghi Bai was not entitled for allotment of 25 Bighas of land on the payment on the basis of her old possession and, therefore, decisions relied upon by the petitioner to the effect that the State Government or its authorities cannot allot land to any individual on their sweet will or whims rendered in cases of Common Cause, A Registered Society (supra) and Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress (supra) are not applicable in this case.
This Court is also of the opinion that as the petitioner has failed to prove his right over the land of Murabba No.170/64 of Chak 5KD, the Board of Revenue has rightly observed that the status of petitioner is of a trespassed only.
In view of the above discussions, no case S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.124/2016 Ami Lal V/S Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 26 for interference in the allotment made in favour of Smt. Maghi Bai is made out at the instance of the petitioner.
Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
m.asif/-PS Abhishek