Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Aziz vs State & Ors on 11 May, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 801 / 2007
Abdul Aziz s/o Noor Haji Masalman, b/c Musalman, aged about 60
years, r/o Raner, Chak No.2-DLM, Tehsil Chhatargarh, District
Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan to be served through Secretary, Colonisation
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer.
3. Collector -cum- Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner.
4. Sub Divisional Magistrate (North) cum Assistant Commissioner
Colonisation, Bikaner.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr.J.L.Purohit, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.N.R.Budhania
For Respondent(s) : Mr.A.R.Godara
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 09/05/2017 Pronounced on 11/05/2017 Per Dr.Pushpendra Singh Bhati,J :
1. This special appeal is arising out of a common order dated May 15, 2007 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2962/1995 (Abdul Aziz Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors.) alongwith other analogous writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions against the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (2 of 4) [SAW-801/2007] at Ajmer, which was again a common order, maintaining the earlier order dated March 27, 1992 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation was upheld. Thus, in the writ petition, there is consistent conclusion to the adjudication by three forums of Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge.
2. The allotments were initially made in 1984, against which cancellation proceedings were initiated under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Area) Rules, 1975.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri J.L.Purohit assisted by Shri N.R.Budhania appearing for the appellant pointed out that the khatedari rights have been conferred long back and stood confirmed, and therefore, could not have been reversed on any count. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also argued that the land allotted to the appellant was a small patch and was rightly allotted in accordance with law. In view of the long standing possession, the cancellation itself was bad in the eye of law.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the site plan from his own record and tried to impress upon the Court that technically the allotments have been made strictly in accordance with law, and there is no breach of the Allotment Rules, which provided for the allotment of small patch of land.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri A.R.Godara however, pointed out that the bifurcation of the land has been (3 of 4) [SAW-801/2007] done in such a manner, so as to bring it within the ambit of small patch, and thus, the same has been systematically planned, so as to ensure technical perfection to the allotment in the category of small patch. As per learned counsel for the respondents, the cancellation proceedings were initiated in 1989, and thus, it was not a long standing possession when the cancellation proceedings were initiated for allotments made in the year 1984. Learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the site plan reflects that in Murabba No.74/30, wherein about 11 bigha 6 biswa land was available, which would not fall within the definition of small patch and the land allotted to one Aziz in Chak No.74/38 is adjoining to the same land. The allotment in one stroke to one person would have created an illegality, so therefore, the allotted land was divided into three persons, out of Murabba No.74/30, even when the land allotted to one of the parties was not even adjacent to the land of Murabba No.74/38 as the land of one of the parties, namely, Aziz was in Murabba Nos.74/47 and 74/63, and thus, there was no question of there being adjoining land of small patch, which is sought to be justified by the appellant.
6. Another allotment made in favour of Mohd. Sharif was in Murabba No.74/23 and about 26 bighas of uncommand land in adjacent land was available at the site, thus, shows that it was not falling within the nature of a strip of adjoining land.
7. The record of the learned forums below clearly show that in totality, there was sufficient land available, which would not conform to the parameters of adjoining strip lands and small patch lands, but were bifurcated into small allotment, so as to bring (4 of 4) [SAW-801/2007] them within the realm of law of allotment of small patch of land, thus causing a fraud upon the Allotment Rules.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Allotment Rules have been circumvented, so as to bring a large chunk of land within the domain of Allotment Rules to be allotted in the form of small patch land for adjoining strip lands by bifurcating the land in question, so as to cause undue favour and fraudulent allotment to the appellant.
9. There is a specific finding of the learned Single Judge that this fraud which has been committed upon the law, whereby a sizeable amount of land, which was available on the site, which was required to be allotted as an independent land in accordance with the Rules, was purportedly given away as small patch land to the appellant by making four allotments. The record substantiates the finding of the learned Single Judge and the site plan apparently makes it clear that such Allotment Rules have been twisted to extend unjust enrichment to the appellant by making preferential allotment of small patch of land in adjoining strip of land, whereas neither of the conditions were apparently existing.
10. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the findings of the three consecutive forums below, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
11. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Skant/-