Skip to content


Govind Singh Vs. Board of Revenue - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 59 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1985(2)WLN663
AppellantGovind Singh
RespondentBoard of Revenue
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....act--sections 11 & 14--allotment--application discussed by collector--order upheld by revenue board--no error on face of record--held, writ is not maintainable.;the collector, sri ganganagar had dismissed the application under section 11/14 of the rajgsthan colonization act. this order of the collector, sri gangangar was upheld by the board of revenue by the impugned order dated may 17, 1977.;there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the board of revenue dated may 17, 1977. the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.;writ dismissed - - it has been contended by the non-petitioners that the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence, either before the collector, sri ganganagar or before this court, that non-petitioner no. after the order of the..........the land for some time surreptitiously. he was given a notice under section 91 of the rajasthan land revenue act and ultimately a penalty of rs. 4,033/- was imposed upon him. it has been contended by the non-petitioners that the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence, either before the collector, sri ganganagar or before this court, that non-petitioner no. 4 was allotted the land on giving false information and even if non-petitioner no. 1 had given false information, his allotment could not have been cancelled in view of section 14 without giving a notice and opportunity to appear and hearing. it has further baa submitted that the order of the board of revenue does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.4. i.....
Judgment:

Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.

1. This writ petition has been directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated May 17, 1977 dismissing the revision against the order dated May 5, 1976 of Collector, Sri Ganganagar.

2. According to the petitioner he had been cultivating sq. No. 36, Chak No. 44 LXP measuring 24-1/2 bighas for the last about 25 years continuously. The petitioner applied for permanent allotment of the said land but the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanpur refused to allot land to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Government of Rajasthan which directed the Collector to consider the petitioner's case for allotment. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar ultimately by his order dated April 26, 1971 allotted the said land to the petitioner. Originally the land was allotted in the name of one Veer Singh which was cancelled by the order dated September 23, 1967 and the land was allotted to non-petitioner No. 4 Saidas by the order dated September 25, 1967 and possession of the land was handed over to non-petitioner No. 4 on March 19, 1968 and March 25, 1968 as per Annexures R/1 and R/2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 11/14 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act to the Collector. The said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector by his order dated November 13, 1968. The petitioner moved another application on December 26, 1968 before the Collector under Section 11/14 which was allowed by the Collector by his order dated March 25, 1970 and allotment in favour of Saidas was cancelled Saidas preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which by its order dated November 26, 1973 set aside the order of the Collector dated March 25, 1970 and further observed that if the Collector feels that the allotment is not in accordance with the law on account of facts other than those decided by the order dated November 13, 1968 having come to his notice, he can of course even now proceed in accordance with law within the limits of his jurisdiction to take appropriate action regarding this allotment. This order was not challenged and has become final. After passing this order, the Collector gave an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, but none of the parties cared to lead any evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Collector Sri Ganganagar by his order dt. May 5, 1976 dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 11/14 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on May 17, 1977 and against this order the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The non-petitioners, Collector, Sri Ganganagar and Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanpur have filed reply to the writ petition, as also respondent No. 4 Saidas has filed a separate reply to the writ petition. In both the replies it has been contended that the petitioner was not cultivating the land for the last 25 years though it has been admitted that the land was originally allotted to one Veer Singh in the year 1959 on temporary cultivation and the allotment of Veer Singh was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on September 23, 1967 and thereafter petitioner cultivated the land for some time surreptitiously. He was given a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and ultimately a penalty of Rs. 4,033/- was imposed upon him. It has been contended by the non-petitioners that the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence, either before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar or before this Court, that non-petitioner No. 4 was allotted the land on giving false information and even if non-petitioner No. 1 had given false information, his allotment could not have been cancelled in view of Section 14 without giving a notice and opportunity to appear and hearing. It has further baa submitted that the order of the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. After the order of the Board of Revenue dated November 26, 1973 the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence but the petitioner failed to lead any evidence before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar to show that allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 was made on the basis of false information and, therefore, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar had dismissed the application under Section 11/14 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act. This order of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar was upheld by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated May 17, 1977. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated March 25, 197Q had cancelled the allotment in favour of the non-petitioner No. 4. On revision the Board of Revenue held that the learned Collector acted without jurisdiction in deciding the case afresh and reviewing its earlier decision by which he has dismissed the application under Section 11/14 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act and, therefore, it had left open to the Collector to decide the case afresh, but inspite of the fresh opportunity, the Collector dismissed the application again by its order dated May 5, 1976.

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated April 26, 1971 granting allotment in favour of the petitioner still subsists and has not been set aside, is of no avail, in view of the Revenue Board's decision dated November 26, 1973 and May 17, 1977.

6. I, therefore, do not find any force in this writ petition as there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Board of Revenue dated May 17, 1977. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //