SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Raj) 1847

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sunil Ambwani, Veerendr Singh Siradhana, JJ.
Ram Bharosi Lal and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 370 of 2013 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2334 of 1995.
Decided On : 27-10-2014

- Respondents
For the Appellants:K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Counsel assisted by Sanjay Mehrishi and Timan Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General and Manoj Bhardwaj, Advocate.

There is no limitation prescribed for cancellation of illegal allotment of government land obtained through fraud.

Headnote:

LAND REVENUE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 82, 9 - ALLOTMENT OF LAND - CANCELLATION - ILLEGAL ALLOTMENT - NO LIMITATION FOR CANCELLATION - ALLOTTEE PLAYING FRAUD - COLLECTOR'S REFERENCE TO BOARD OF REVENUE FOR CANCELLATION - VALID.

Fact of the Case:

The Collector of Bharatpur initiated proceedings under Section 9 read with Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956, for cancellation of the lease of a piece of land allotted to late Shri Bhoori Singh, a Postmaster, for cultivation purposes. The Collector found that the allotment was irregular as the land was not open for allotment, Bhoori Singh was not eligible as he was a government servant, and the land was never cultivated. The Board of Revenue accepted the Collector's reference and cancelled the allotment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allotment was illegal as it was made to a government servant who was not eligible for allotment, the land was not open for allotment, and the allottee had played fraud by misrepresenting facts. The court held that there is no limitation prescribed for cancellation of illegal allotment of government land obtained through fraud.

Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had the authority to make a reference for cancellation of allotment after a period of more than 30 years. 2. Whether the allotment was illegal and subject to cancellation.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the decisions relied upon by the appellants, which dealt with the limitation for availing remedies in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, were not applicable to the present case as the allotment was illegal and obtained through fraud. 2. The court held that there is no limitation prescribed for cancellation of illegal allotment of government land obtained through fraud.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the special appeal, upholding the judgment of the Single Judge which had confirmed the Board of Revenue's order cancelling the allotment.

Judgement Key Points

- The Court held there is no limitation prescribed for cancellation of illegal allotment of government land obtained through fraud. [17000406560008] - The Collector's reference to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of the allotment was upheld; there is no error in referring after many years where fraud was involved. [17000406560008] - The allotment to Bhoori Singh was illegal due to not open for allotment, eligibility of the allottee (government servant), and absence of cultivation; the Board of Revenue's cancellation was affirmed. [17000406560003][17000406560006][17000406560007] - The Special Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Board of Revenue’s cancellation order and the Single Judge's judgment. (!) (!)

Question 1?

What is the legal position on the validity of cancelling an illegal allotment of government land obtained through fraud and whether there is any limitation on such cancellation?

Question 2?

What is the authority of the Collector to make a reference for cancellation of an allotment after a long period (over 30 years) and whether revision/remedy provisions affect such reference?

Question 3?

What factors determine illegality of an allotment to a government servant for Abadi land and the proper authority or procedure to cancel such an allotment?


JUDGMENT

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2013, passed by learned Single Judge, confirming the order of the Board of Revenue dated 10.01.1995, by which it had allowed the reference made by the Collector, Bharatpur, for cancellation of lease of the land in Khasra No.335, measuring 1 Bigha, 8 Biswa, situate at Anaha Gate, Bharatpur. The Board of Revenue set aside the mutation in favour of other petitioners on the basis of the sale deed, executed in their favour by late Shri Bhoori Singh, the original allottee of the land.

3. Late Shri Bhoori Singh was serving as Postmaster at Bharatpur. In the year 1958, he made a request for allotment of land for cultivating vegetables. The land was recorded as an 'Abadi' land, which could not be alloted to him for cultivation, more so when he was a Government servant, serving as Postmaster. The land was alloted for a period of one year for cultivation, and was so recorded in the revenue records.

4. Late Shri Bhoori Singh sold the land, which was allotted to him for the purpose of cultivation only for a period of one year. A suit for specific performance of contract was filed, which travelled up to the Apex Court, in which the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Late Shri Bhoori Singh again transferred the land unsuccessfully, to avoid the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment.

5. The proceedings, giving rise to the Special Appeal, were initiated before the Collector, Bharatpur under Section 9 read with Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, the Act of 1956'). The Collector recorded a finding that the land could not have been allotted to late Shri Bhoori Singh, and that the entire proceedings of the suit for specific performance of contract, were based on the sale deed, which could not be executed by the allottee of the land for a period of one year only. In the application made before the Collector, Bharatpur, it was stated that the allotment was made irregularly in Samvat 2014 of the land, which was not open for allotment for agriculture purposes. It was an 'Abadi' land, adjacent to Anaha Gate. Late Shri Bhoori Singh never cultivated the land, nor any cultivation was recorded in the revenue records. He was not a bonafide farmer, or a landless person, eligible for allotment. He was serving as a Postmaster and, thus, allotment could not be made in his favour. In any case, allotment was only for a period of one year, after which he became an unauthorized occupant of the land.

6. The Collector drew the proceedings and made a reference for cancellation of the allotment to the Board of Revenue. The reference was accepted by the Board of Revenue, and the allotment was cancelled on 10.01.1995, giving rise to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2334/1995, which was pending in this Court for a period of 18 years.

7. Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact that the land was not open for allotment. The procedure followed in making allotment in favour of late Shri Bhoori Singh, who was serving as Postmaster, was entirely illegal. He was not eligible for allotment. He tried to protect his possession over the land by transfer, twice, in which the transferee failed to succeed. They did not acquire any right over the land. Learned Single Judge observed that the land could only be allotted to a landless person, as defined in Rule 2(iii) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957. Late Shri Bhoori Singh did not fall in the category of landless person, and was thus not eligible for allotment.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the allotment could only be cancelled by the Collector under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1957. He submits that in such case, revision was the remedy available, and since such remedy was not availed, the Collector did not have the authority to make reference, after a period of more than 30 years,








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top