Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Etc. on 8 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)WLC489, 1999(1)WLN10
JUDGMENT B.J. Shethna, J.
1. This writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A appended with this order, having common question of law, are decided by this common order.
2. All these petitions have been filed by the State of Rajasthan through the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner, challenging the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents in whose favour the land was allotted by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner under Rule 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules") and the order passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting subsequent review petitions filed by the State.
3. In August, 1989 Assistant Colonisation Commissioner made allotment in favour of the respondents in all these petitions by recovering full amount of the land. However, in 1990, the said allotment was challenged by way of applications before the Colonisation Commissioner on the ground that the allotment was made without due publication of notification in the public gazette by the allotting authority. The said applications were allowed by the Colonisation Commissioner in 1992 against the respondents filed separate revision petitions before the Board of Revenue and challenged the same. The Board of Revenue by its impugned order allowed all the revision petitions filed by the petitioners-present respondents on the ground that on a technical mistake like not issuing notification in public gazette, the allotment made in favour of the persons cannot be cancelled. Review petitions filed against the said order were also rejected by the Board of Revenue. Hence, these petitions.
4. These petitions are labelled as petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India but strictly speaking these petitions are under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope for which is very narrow and limited. As held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustkim even the error on law committed by the Courts below cannot be corrected by this Court in exercise of its supervisionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The only submission made by learned counael Shri Tatia for the State in all these petitions was that there was a clear breach of Rule 13-A of the Rules committed by the Assistant Coloisation Commissioner in making the allotment of land to the respondents. He submitted that by not publishing the notice in public gazette, the other citizens were denied the opportunity, therefore, the Colonisation Commissioner rightly allowed the applications and cancelled the allotment. He further submitted that the Board of Revenue was in clear error in allowing the revision petitions filed by the respondents on the ground that at the most it was a technical mistake committed by the Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner, who made the allotment without issuing the notification in public gazette.
6. It must be stated that not a single citizen made a grievance about the allotment who have not been offered this benefit. It is also not the case that by making the allotment the State was put to the financial loss. The State has recovered the full amount from the persons who have been allotted land. That apart, the Board of Revenue itself made it clear that the difference in amount can be recovered by the State Government from the persons in whose favour the land was allotted after issuing due notification. In fact, the Government itself amended Rule 13-B on 19.2.97 which reads as under-
13-B: Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 13-A, a land allotted before 31.12.92 to a person eligible for allotment as a sale by special allotment under the said rule, but such allotment being invalid on the ground that the land so allotted was not notified in the official gazette as required may be regularised by Collector/Commissioner on payment of the present cost of land calculated at rates for Special Allotment prevailing on the date of application for regularisation. The present rates for special allotment shall be determined by the Commissioner keeping in view the rate of land of similar soil classification notified for the special allotment in the same or the nearby chak at the time of earlier allotment and by affecting 15% yearly increase in them. The rates so determined shall be notified. The application for such regularisation shall have to be submitted within a period 180 days or upto the time to be extended by the Government from time to time from the date of issue of Notification of rates at which land shall be regularised. The amount if any already paid shall be adjusted if it is in excess of 35% of the present cost of the land and if amount already deposted is less than 35% of the present cost, the balance shall have to be deposited along with application of regularisation. The remaining price shall be recovered as per the provisions of Clause 3 of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 13-A. Provided if the above allotment is made of a small patch which, in fact, is not a small patch, such allotment of the land shall not be regularised.
7. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue committed any error in allowing the revision petitions filed by the respondents. Accordingly, Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the review petitions filed by the State. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Before parting, it must be stated that a pertinent query was put to learned Counsel Shri Tatia for the petitioner State as to whether any action was taken against the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, who allotted the land to the respondents in 1989 in breach of Rule 13-A of the Rules or to? Mr. Tatia only submitted that probably not. Under the circumstances, for no fault of the respondents, they should not be made to suffer and the allotment made in their favour in 1989 cannot be cancelled in 1999 by this Court by interfering with the orders passed by the Board of Revenue.
9. In view of the above, all these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.