Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vaidbakash vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 23 February, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas
(1 of 4) [SAW-609/2010]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 609/2010
Vaidbakash S/o Shri Varium Khan aged about 78 years, by caste
Muslim, resident of Chak 7 G.D., Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Sri
Ganganagar.
2. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan through the Registrar, Board
of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
3. The Addl. Commissioner for Colonization, Indira Gandhi Canal
Project-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner.
4. The Tehsildar, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar. (Note -
Office of the Asstt. Commissioner Colonization, Indira Gandhi
Canal Project-cum-Allotting Authority, Gharsana at Anoopgarh
has since been abolished).
5. Sukhcharan Singh S/o Shri Kartar Singh, by caste Jat Sikh,
resident of Chak 5 G.D.B., Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Khatri, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order 23/02/2022 This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein assailing the order of the Board of Revenue in the matter of allotment of small patches of land, was dismissed.
(Downloaded on 25/02/2022 at 08:38:30 PM)
(2 of 4) [SAW-609/2010] Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner, who was holding agriculture land at squares Nos.46/2 and 46/10 in Chak 5 G.D. made two applications on 16.11.1984 and 09.11.1984 respectively for allotment of small patches of land adjacent to his land situated at square No.46/2 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 3 bighas respectively.
The land was shown as "Gair Mumkin" land in the Revenue records vide order dated 04.12.1984. The Allotting Authority, who was also the Collector under the control of Rajasthan Colonization Act, passed an order to convert the nature of the land in Revenue record as "agriculture land" and, thereafter, proceeded to pass an order in favour of the petitioner-appellant.
This, however, was assailed by the respondent no.5 by filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 28.04.1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.5 preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue while allowing the appeal held that the allotment was illegal, firstly because the land was not permissible to be allotted under the law and secondly, that the procedure of alloting the land itself was not in accordance with law because neither any notice was issued nor any objections were invited giving liberty to the persons like respondent No.5 to come forward and submit their objections.
Thus, the order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing writ petition before this Court which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge. Hence, this Special Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the entire decision is based on misconception of law, firstly, on the ground (Downloaded on 25/02/2022 at 08:38:30 PM) (3 of 4) [SAW-609/2010] that it was not permissible under the law to alter the land use from Abadi land to agricultural and consequently, respondent no.5 was also entitled to be considered for allotment and had there been any notice issued, he would have also applied for land to be allotted to him.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under the law there is no prohibition upon the authority to alter the land from Abadi land to agricultural land. It is also submitted that the land was otherwise vacated by the Police Department and the Police Station, which situated there was also removed, therefore, there was no impediment upon the authorities concerned to allot the land.
It is also submitted that the sale made in favour of the respondent No.5 was void and incapable of transfer in favour of the respondent No.5 because it was made in violation of the Colonization Rules of 1954.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would argue that once the sale was done and registered documents was created in favour of the respondent No.5, the title of the respondent No.5 over the land is beyond dispute and in that case, the provision contained in Rule 15 of the rules of 1975 cannot apply. He would also submit that irrespective of the issue of locus standi of the petitioner, law does not permit conversion of Abadi land into agricultural in the manner as has been ordered by the Allotting Authority and as such, the Special Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard counsel for the parties.
Though number of issues have been raised before us but, in our opinion, the findings of learned Single Judge deserved to be (Downloaded on 25/02/2022 at 08:38:30 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-609/2010] sustained only on the ground that in the procedure of allotment, no notice was given nor any objections were invited before making allotment in favour of the appellant.
Indisputably, the respondent No.5 was purchaser of the land under the relevant law. In the present proceedings, the legality of sale could not be allowed to be challenged. In our opinion, the allotment made in favour of the appellant was liable to be set aside only on the ground that the procedure of notice to be issued and objections in the matter of allotment be called for was not followed. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J 86-Hanuman/-
(Downloaded on 25/02/2022 at 08:38:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)