Skip to content


Har Chand and Nand Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 277 and 278 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)252
AppellantHar Chand and Nand Ram
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....evidence that petitioners were residents of rajasthan--not iota of evidence to discredit it and reports of tehsildar and asst. colonization commissioner--held, report is accepted;there is ample evidence to show that the petitioners were permanent residents of rajasthan and there is not iota of evidence to discredit the evidence and the report of the tehsildar and the assistant colonisation commissioner. the report of the assistant colonization commissioner dated 16-8-1969 is accepted.;writ allowed. - - 1) that petitioners were residents of rajasthan and recommended for permanent allotment. 12), and, recommended the case to the colonization commissioner to inquire in to the matter and arrive at a correct conclusion and if petitioner is entitled for permanent allotment to act in that..........the same order2. petitioners were allotted lands in the year 1952 for temporary cultivation. the rajasthan colonization act was promulgated in the year 1954 and the rajasthan colonization (bhakra project government lands allotment & sales) rules, 1955, came into force in 1955.in 1956, petitioner moved application for permanent allotment. naib tehsildar & tehsildar made a report that petitioners were not permanent residents, and, therefore, they were not entitled to the allotment of the lands on permanent basis. petitioners appeared before the deputy director (colonization) hanumangarh and produced evidence before him to show that he was resident of rajasthan whereupon deputy director colonization remanded the case for holding inquiry. tehsildar suratgarh, after holding an inquiry.....
Judgment:

Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.

1. These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as they involve same point of law and are directed against the same order

2. Petitioners were allotted lands in the year 1952 for temporary cultivation. The Rajasthan Colonization Act was promulgated in the year 1954 and the Rajasthan Colonization (Bhakra Project Government Lands Allotment & Sales) Rules, 1955, came into force in 1955.In 1956, petitioner moved application for permanent allotment. Naib Tehsildar & Tehsildar made a report that petitioners were not permanent residents, and, therefore, they were not entitled to the allotment of the lands on permanent basis. Petitioners appeared before the Deputy Director (Colonization) Hanumangarh and produced evidence before him to show that he was resident of Rajasthan whereupon Deputy Director Colonization remanded the case for holding inquiry. Tehsildar Suratgarh, after holding an inquiry submitted his report dated 18-10-1961 (Ex. 1) that petitioners were residents of Rajasthan and recommended for permanent allotment.

3. Another report by another Tehsildar dated 24-4-1961 (Ex. 9) is also to the same effect and, Assistant Colonization Commissioner submitted the papers to the Deputy Director Colonization but he rejected the application of the each petitioner vide his order dated 15-12-1961. Appeal preferred by the petitioners against this order was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by order dated 6-7-1964. Petitioners preferred revision before the State Government. The State Government allowed the revision petition vide order dt. Feb. 5, 1968 (Ex.12), and, recommended the case to the Colonization Commissioner to inquire in to the matter and arrive at a correct conclusion and if petitioner is entitled for permanent allotment to act in that connection. The Asst. Colonization Comrar. himself proceeded to the village Goluwala to hold a detailed inquiry on the site after due publicity by the order dt. 6-8-1969 (Ex. 2). The Asst. Commissioner Colonization after making detailed inquiry in 'Majma-e-Aam' submitted the detailed report dated 16-8-1969 (Ex. 3) opining that the petitioners have been wrongly described as 'Aadhuchari' and that they are the residents of the area and further recommended that the land should be allotted to them. However, the Commissioner Colonization still rejected the applications of the petitioners and relied on the earlier observations made in order dt. 15-12-1961 does not require any inference or amendment and sent the case back to the Collector, vide his order dated 24-9-1969 (Ex.7). The Collector on receipt of this order, vide his order dated 22-10-1969 (Ex.4) observed as under:

I agree with the findings of the Colonization Commissioner. The parties concerned be intimated accordingly.

and the file was sent to record.

4. Petitioners filed a revision before the State of Rajasthan which was transferred to the Board of Revenue for disposal and the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision vide order dated 6-2-1978 (Ex. 5) and it is against this order, present writ petition has been filed.

5. The State of Rajasthan has also filed the reply to the writ petition. I have gone through the judgment of the Board of Revenue and it has seriously erred in observing that the orders dated 6-5-1960 and the report of the Tehsildar dated 24-4-1961 and recommendation of the Additional Colonization Commissioner are not relevant for the consideration of the present writ petition.

6. The matter has been hanging since 1956 and only point to be decided is that as to whether petitioners were residing in Rajasthan or not and they were entitled for permanent allotment, under the Act and Rules. There is no evidence what so ever to discredit the recommendation of the Tehsildar and the Assistant Colonization Commissioner. They have after inquiry come to a definite finding that the petitioners were residents of Rajasthan. Petitioners have been running from pillar to post and the mere technicalities cannot come in their way to establish their right which is in my opinion, fully done in the present case. The Asst. Colonization Commr. was authorised by the Colonization Commissioner and the Colonization Commissioner should not differ with him ordinarily unless he had personally inquired in to the matter. The State Government had directed the Colonization Commissioner to inquire in matter personally and he had asked the Assistant Colonization Commissioner to inquire into the matter. His report is in great length and the matter was considered in 'Majma-e-Aam' so it cannot be said that report was not proper or legal.

7. In view of these observations, I am of the view, that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in rejecting the revision petition on technical ground. I do not find it necessary to remand the case to Board of the Revenue because there is ample evidence to show that the petitioners were permanent residents of Rajasthan and there is no iota of evidence to discredit the evidence and the report of the Tehsildar and the Assistant Colonization Commissioner. The matter has been hanging since 1956, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The report of the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner dated 16-8-1969 is accepted and the Collector/Allotting Authority, Ganganagar, is directed to decide the applications of the petitioners in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own costs.


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