High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.M.Lodha
GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE MAHAWA - Appellant
Versus
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. 983 Of 1982
Decided On : 11/04/1982
LAND REFORMS - ALLOTMENT OF SURPLUS LAND - NEPOTISM AND FAVOURITISM - STAY ORDER - NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY OF APPEAL - COMPLAINTS UNDER RULE 17 (4) OF CEILING RULES - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Gram Panchayat village Mahawa, Tehsil Todabhim, District Sawai Madhopur, represented by Narainlal Sarpanch, filed a writ petition against the apprehended and later on actual allotments, which were made on 25-6-82 and 30-6-82 of the agricultural land. The petitioner claimed that he is filing this writ petition in his own capacity and also in representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of village Mahawa. The land measuring 1940 Bighas consisting of Khasra Numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 to 20, 21, 23, 130. 1307 and 1309, situated in village Mahawa, Tehsil Toda Bhim was admittedly in the Jagir of Maharai Kumar Prithwi Singh son of late Maharai Mansingh of Jaipur. The petitioners case is that this land was given to different persons as tenants by Maharai Kumar Prithwi Singh and later on for an area of 627 Bighas and 17 Biswas the tenants became khatedars.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable on two preliminary objections. Firstly, the allotment orders made in favour of 365 persons who have been prima facie treated as landless tenants and in whose favour land has been allotted cannot be quashed and cancelled on account of allegations of nepotism or favouritism, behind the back of those persons. Secondly, the petitioner could have challenged the allotment orders on the grounds which have been urged here and the Collector would have been in a better position to decide them. According to Sub-clause (6) there is further provision for the Board of Revenue to reconsider the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the allotment orders made in favour of 365 persons who have been prima facie treated as landless tenants and in whose favour land has been allotted can be quashed and cancelled on account of allegations of nepotism or favouritism, behind the back of those persons? 2. Whether the petitioner could have challenged the allotment orders on the grounds which have been urged here and the Collector would have been in a better position to decide them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allotment orders made in favour of 365 persons who have been prima facie treated as landless tenants and in whose favour land has been allotted cannot be quashed and cancelled on account of allegations of nepotism or favouritism, behind the back of those persons. The elementary principles of natural justice warrant that before the allotments are cancelled and the orders are quashed, each person in whose favour allotment order stands, should be heard. 2. The court held that the petitioner could have challenged the allotment orders on the grounds which have been urged here and the Collector would have been in a better position to decide them. According to Sub-clause (6) there is further provision for the Board of Revenue to reconsider the matter.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
G. M. LODHA, J.
( 1 ) SEEMINGLY battle against nepotism, favouritism and deprivation of landless from distribution of surplus land under ceiling laws, whether genuine or crocodile tears and trickery to retain possession by landowners, is the pivot of real debate in this petition.
( 2 ) HARDLY the ink of Honble Justice Shrimals pen has dried in penning the monograph on "land Reforms", in which he made Government Advocates tall claim of distribution of this land to landless, the alleged third innings of this Land-owners v. Landless litigation was on the "docket" and board of this Court, by the present writ having been filed on 19th July, 1982. Whether it is old wine in new bottle, is a serious question for judicial adjudication.
( 3 ) THE above author of "land Reforms Monograph" has observed as under:-"transfer of land made by land-holders having excess land than that of the ceiling limit prescribed under the law does not create any right in favour of the transferees and the plea of bona fide purchaser is not open to them. In Lekh Raj v. State of Rajasthan S. B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 21 of 1981, decided on October 30, 1981 along with 53 writ petitions filed by transferors of Maharaja Kumar Pritivi Singh, I held that the pattas issued to the petitioners of these cases were ante-dated. They were neither on stamps nor registered ones and no right was created by them in favour of the holders of those pattas. In those cases, it was also held that petitioners were guilty of laches and contemptuous conduct disentitled them to extraordinary remedy under Rule 226 of the Constitution of India. Detailed scrutiny of these cases reveal that even highly placed persons change their stand and raise false pleas and put resistance to save land from being resumed and put obstacles in allotment of land to landless persons by issuing Benami Pattas in favour of their employees and favourites. On the basis of the information given to the court by the Government Advocate it can be said this time the administrative machinery has been geared up properly. It is said that land measuring 1840 acres involved in the above noted cases, have been allotted to landless peasants by now, 1982 RLR (Journal Section) 22,"
( 4 ) GRAM Panchayat village Mahawa, Tehsil Todabhim, District Sawai Madhopur, represented by Narainlal Sarpanch, has filed this writ petition against the apprehended and later on actual allotments, which were made on 25-6-82 and 30-6-82 of the agricultural land. The petitioner has made the following prayer :-
"it is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to accept this writ petition, issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, call for the record of the case and it may be declared that the initiation for the proceedings for allotment of land were all illegal, void and the notification dated 5-5-1982 and 30-6-1982 be quashed and set aside and the allotments made be cancelled and the Advisory Committee and the Sub-Divisional Officer be directed not to allot land measuring 627 Bighas-17 biswas in view of the two stay orders passed by the Government dated 12-8-1980 and 24-6-1982 and the Advisory Committee and the Sub-Divisional Officer be restrained from allotting land to any body which is Ghair Mumkin Talab and Ghair Mumkin land (uncultivable) without converting its category by the competent authority and for the rest of the land the respondents be directed to invite fresh applications for allotment in accordance with law, and the persons in possession of 627 Bighas 17 Biswas of land may now be dispossessed and any other appropriate writ, direction or order be issued which your Lordship think proper. "
( 5 ) THE petitioner claims that he is filing this writ petition in his own capacity and also in representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of village Mahawa.
( 6 ) THE land measuring 1940 Bighas consisting of Khasra Numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 to 20, 21, 23, 130. 1307 and 1309, situated in village Mahawa, Tehsil
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.