Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaspal Singh vs Board Of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors on 27 July, 2009
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
10 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7365/2009.
Jaspal Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
Date of Order :: 27th July 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. R.S. Choudhary, for the petitioner.
...
BY THE COURT:
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error leading to failure of justice in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities so as to consider any interference in the writ jurisdiction.
The dispute relates to 4 bighas of agricultural land comprised in Killas Nos.20,21,24 & 25 of Murabba No.237/33 at Chak 2 KYM that was purportedly alloted as a small patch to the petitioner on 04.10.1997. This allotment was challenged by the respondent No.5 Kana Ram in an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner ('the RAA') essentially on the ground that the said small patch was falling in the Murabba under his allotment and such small patch too had already been allotted to him on 28.05.1991.
The learned RAA, by the order dated 02.09.2000, proceeded to remand the matter to the allotting authority, the Sub Divisional Officer, Khajuwala ('the SDO') who sought a 2 report from the Tehsildar; and, according to the petitioner, such a report came to be made on 28.05.2004 (Annex.9) to the effect that neither the said respondent was in possession nor there existed any entry in the record in his favour. It is submitted that the SDO, thereafter, issued the allotment order in favour of the petitioner on 05.08.2004, essentially maintaining the earlier allotment order dated 04.10.1997.
The respondent Kana Ram challenged the order dated 05.08.2004 before the RAA who proceeded to allow the appeal by the judgment dated 04.06.2005 particularly on the consideration that the said small patch had already been allotted to the appellant on 28.05.1991 and, existing such an allotment, merely for want of entries in the revenue record, no valid subsequent allotment could have been made in favour of the petitioner.
Aggrieved of the order dated 04.06.2005, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board'). While dismissing this revision petition by the impugned order dated 08.07.2009, the learned Member of the Board referred to the following as indisputable facts:-
"1. आवट त क ज न व ल भम ककल नम र 20, 21, 24 व 25 कल 4 घ रब नम र 237/33 क ह जजसक शष 21 घ क ववध$वत आव न अप र( कनर क) ह । ननय नस र छ) पट क आव न 3 0 पर प रम कत उस क शतक र क ह)त ह जजसक रब 0 वह छ) पट अवज3रत ह । अत: क न र क इस छ) पट आव न पर पर अध$क र नत ह ।
2. अप र( क न र क) इस छ) पट क आव न ट5न क 28.5.91 क) ह ककय ज चक र तर उसक द र इसक एक ककशत भ ज करव ई ज चक र , ज कक प र( जसप लमसह क) इसक आव न ट5न क 4.10.97 क) ककय गय , ज) 5 क ह ।"
The learned Member of the Board disagreed with the observations of the SDO that the earlier allotment did not remain in existence for want of possession of Kana Ram and for his having not complied with the terms of the allotment order and observed that the allotment continues unless set aside by the competent authority. It was also observed that the entires in the concerned revenue records were required to be made by the revenue authorities and the respondent Kana Ram could not be penalised merely for such an omission on the part of the concerned authorities.
In view of the essential findings on the facts that 4 bighas of the land in question is comprised in Murabba No.237/33 and the remaining 21 bighas of the land of the said Murabba is already in allotment with the respondent Kana Ram, this Court is satisfied that he had every right to seek allotment of such 4 bighas as small patch.
4
In view of further finding that in the year 1991, allotment had indeed been made in favour of the respondent Kana Ram and he had in fact deposited one installment also, the learned Member of the Board appears correct in the observation that for any other fault referable to the revenue authorities, the said allottee Kana Ram could not be penalised.
Existing the allotment made in favour of the respondent Kana Ram in the year 1991; and for other surrounding facts and circumstances, the view as taken by the Board of Revenue appears to be a reasonable view of the matter and there does not appear any reason to consider any interference in the writ jurisdiction.
Though the learned counsel attempted to submit, with reference to the Sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Colonisation Act, that the respondent had not acquired khatedari rights but, in the opinion of this Court, such submissions remain rather misplaced for the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue involved, as noticed above.
This writ petition does not merit admission and is, therefore, rejected.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
s.soni