1995 Supreme(Raj) 981
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.R.Arora, D.C.Dalela, JJ.
Pat Ram and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 948 of 1986.
Decided On : 31-08-1995
The Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel an allotment of land made under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957, after the conferment of Khatedari rights on the allottee.
Headnote:
LAND ALLOTMENT - CANCELLATION - RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE (ALLOTMENT OF LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES) RULES, 1957 AND 1970 - CONDITIONS FOR CANCELLATION - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - KHATEDARI RIGHTS - POWER TO CANCEL ALLOTMENT AFTER CONFERRING KHATEDARI RIGHTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were allotted 100 Bighas of Barani land in 1963 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957. In 1974, they were granted Khatedari rights over the land. In 1979, the Collector cancelled the allotment, citing misrepresentation, non-consultation with the Advisory Committee, and lack of cultivation. The petitioners challenged the cancellation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment under Rule 14(4) of the 1970 Rules, as the allotment was made under the 1957 Rules. The Court also found that there was no misrepresentation or fraud, as the Rules did not specify any residence requirement. The Court further held that the Collector erred in finding that the petitioners had not cultivated the land, as they had provided Khasra Girdwari showing cultivation. Additionally, the Court held that the cancellation after 16 years was unreasonable and that the Collector had no power to cancel the allotment after the conferment of Khatedari rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to cancel the allotment under Rule 14(4) of the 1970 Rules, when the allotment was made under the 1957 Rules? 2. Whether there was misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining the allotment? 3. Whether the petitioners had violated any conditions of the allotment? 4. Whether the cancellation of the allotment after 16 years was reasonable? 5. Whether the Collector had the power to cancel the allotment after the conferment of Khatedari rights?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment under Rule 14(4) of the 1970 Rules, as the allotment was made under the 1957 Rules. Rule 21 of the 1970 Rules provided that the repeal of the 1957 Rules would not affect any order made or action taken under those Rules. 2. There was no misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining the allotment, as the Rules did not specify any residence requirement. 3. The petitioners had not violated any conditions of the allotment, as they had fulfilled all the terms and conditions for allotment and had been granted Khatedari rights. 4. The cancellation of the allotment after 16 years was unreasonable, as the Collector had not acted within a reasonable time. 5. The Collector had no power to cancel the allotment after the conferment of Khatedari rights, as the applicability of the Rules came to an end after the conferment of Khatedari rights.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the Collector, the Revenue Appellate Authority, and the Board of Revenue cancelling the allotment of land to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
1. - Petitioners Pat Ram and Bhagwana Ram were allotted 100 Bighas of Barani land of Khasra No. 466-Min. of Village Jhajhu, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner, by the Tehsildar vide order dated 7.9.1963 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules, 1957'). On 15.5.74 the Khatedari rights with respect to this very land were conferred upon the petitioners and they became the Khatedar tenants of the land in question. After the petitioners became the Khatedar tenants of the land in question, one Har Lal filed a complaint before the Collector, Bikaner, challenging the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners. The learned Collector, Bikaner, exercising its powers under Sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules, 1970') cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners vide its order dated 3.9.1979. While cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, the Collector, Bikaner, observed that (i) while making the application for allotment of the land, the petitioners have wrongly shown their residence at village Vijaisinghpura whereas they are actually the residents of village Rasisar; (ii) the allotment has been obtained by the petitioners on the basis of the wrong information supplied by them to the Allotting Authority; (iii) the allotment has been made by the Tehsildar without consultation with the Advisory Committee; and (iv) the land has not been cultivated by the petitioners for a longer period after the same was allotted to them. The petitioners, being aggrieved of the order dated 3.9.79, passed by the Collector, Bikaner, cancelling the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, vide its judgment dated 23.12.82, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellants. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23.12.82, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, by its judgment dated 22.11.85, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. It is against this judgment dated 22.11.85, passed by the Board of Revenue that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that (i) the allotment of the land was made in favour of the petitioners under the Rules of 1957, which could not have been cancelled by the Collector while exercising the powers under the Rules of 1970; (ii) there was no condition or priority in the allotment of the land relating to the residence of the persons provided in the Rules of 1957 and, therefore, no cancellation of the allotment could have been ordered on the basis of the residence of the petitioners; (iii) once the Khatedari rights have been accrued to the petitioners, the allotment could not have been cancelled under rule 14(4) of the Rules; (iv) the allotment was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963 and the cancellation has been made in the year 1979 after the lapse of about 16 years which could not have been made even if the wrong allotment of the land has been made in favour of the petitioners; and (v) the petitioners cultivated the land when there were rains and have not violated any of the conditions thereof and, therefore, the learned Collector, Bikaner, was not justified in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioners and, therefore, the order, passed by the learned Collector cancelling the allotment and the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue affirming this order, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the orders passed by the Collector as well as t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
