Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Ram vs The Board Of Revenue on 17 July, 2019
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5935/2019 Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Ganpat Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of Village Phoolasar, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. The Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Colonisation, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Additional Commissioner (Colonisation), Bikaner (Raj.).
4. The Tehsildar (Land Revenue), Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5997/2019 Mahi Ram S/o Shri Ganpat Ram, Aged About 37 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Phoolasar, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The Board Of Revenue, Raj. Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Colonisation, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Additional Commissioner (Colonisation), Bikaner (Raj.)
4. The Tehsildar (Land Revenue), Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:34:22 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-5935/2019]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
17/07/2019
These writ petitions emanate from two separate orders, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer on 05.02.2018, vide which petitioners' revisions petitions have been rejected.
The facts involved are that the petitioners were allotted agricultural land vide two orders dated 26.05.1999 and 14.11.1999, by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization. After some time an inquiry was conducted, as the allotting authority had a doubt that at the time of allotment, the petitioners were minor.
The said inquiry was dropped by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization on 13.08.2003 (Annex.5).
The respondent No.2, thereafter, issued a notice dated 25.11.2006 requiring the petitioners to produce relevant evidence, particularly about their age, as allotment(s) made to the minor were irregular/illegal.
On receipt of the notice aforesaid, petitioners filed preliminary objections with a contention that the impugned proceedings under Rule 22(3) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975') were not permissible, as earlier proceedings initiated for the same cause had been dropped.
The preliminary objections came to be rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, vide his order dated (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:34:22 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-5935/2019] 27.01.2009, inter alia holding that the earlier proceedings were not initiated/drawn under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1975 and as a matter of fact an attempt was made to ascertain the correctness of the facts about the age of the petitioners.
The present petitioners preferred revision petitions against the order dated 27.01.2009, referred above, which have been rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, vide his order dated 05.02.2018. While rejecting petitioners' revision petitions, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has held that on earlier occasion, no prescribed notice under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1975 was issued to the petitioners and it was only a cursory inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization. Hence, the earlier proceedings closed in the year 2003, cannot be said to be proceedings under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1975, so as to bar the present proceeding on the principles of res-judicata.
Mr. Jagga, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the competent officer, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, had dropped the identical proceedings, vide his order dated 13.08.2003 and, therefore, de novo proceeding under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1975 is not permissible, inasmuch as the Rules of 1975 do not confer any power to review. He argued that it is settled proposition of law that in absence of specific provision permitting the authority to review an order, the review is impermissible.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The reasons are not far to seek. (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:34:22 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-5935/2019] Firstly, the petitioners have approached this Court after about 14 months of passing of the impugned order. The order under consideration was passed by the Board of Revenue on 05.02.2018; whereas the petitioners have filed the present writ petition on 24.04.2019. There is no explanation of delay. Given the fact, that the petitioners' revision petitions before the Board of Revenue too were filed after the expiry of period of limitation and were heard after the delay was condoned by the learned Member, Board of Revenue; this Court feels that the petitioners are habitual lackadaisical in their approach.
That apart, there is nothing on record to show that the earlier proceeding/order dated 13.08.2003 was passed in furtherance of the proceedings under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1975.
A perusal of the note-sheet dated 13.08.2003 reveals that the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization had drawn some proceeding, pursuant to a letter dated 10.03.2003 of the Additional Commissioner, Colonization (Vigilance) and closed them while recording that the petitioners were major at the time of allotment of the land. The note-sheet does not evince or even suggest that the proceedings in question drawn on 13.08.2003, were the proceedings under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1975. Neither the notice which proceeded the order dated 13.08.2003 has been placed on record, nor the letter of 10.03.2003, written by the Additional Commissioner, Colonization (Vigilance) is available.
This being the position, I am of the considered view that the authorities below have committed no error in rejecting (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:34:22 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-5935/2019] petitioners' preliminary objection. It is to be noted that the matter on merit is yet to be adjudicated, hence, interference of this Court, at this juncture is not called for.
The writ petitions thus, fail.
Corresponding stay applications also fail.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 180-181-skm/-
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:34:22 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)