Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sangeet Lodha, J.
Lilu Ram son of Shri Mam Chand - Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ (CW) No. 2109 of 1996
Decided On : 04-10-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Mr. Vipul Dharnia
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Mr. A.R. Godara
Headnote:
Constitution of India1,950 - Article 227 - Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 - Section 11 r/w and 14 - Order of Board of Revenue Rajasthan whereby an appeal preferred by petitioner against order of Revenue Appellate Authority , affirming order passed by District Collector and further directing resumption of disputed land by State stands dismissed - Petitioner purchased and comprising Square PBN, District in open auction on petitioner deposited ¼th amount of sale price sale was confirmed by State Government and On notice being issued for depositing remaining ¾th amount petitioner moved an application to Tehsildar that bid was made by him on behalf of him on their behalf and entries in record showing his name may be corrected and remaining amount may be realized from actual purchaser of land respondents TehSildar made a report which was approved by Deputy Commissioner Colonization and respondents deposited remaining amount and patta of land was issued in their name and petitioner preferred Rajasthan Colonization Act before District Collector for cancellation of matter was remanded for inquiry afresh to District Collector - Held, it is not case of petitioner that after depositing ¼th amount he ever offered remaining bid amount and involvement of petitioner in effecting fraudulent transfer which was subsequently questioned by him is apparent on face of record be that as it may while exercising power and setting aside fraudulent transfer here was no occasion for District Collector to pass an order directing handing over of possession of disputed land to petitioner and RAA, Bikaner was absolutely justified in directing resumption of the land by State in this view of matter in considered opinion of this Court order impugned passed by Board of Revenue dismissing appeal preferred by petitioner and affirming order passed by RAA, Bikaner does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction and it has come on record that despite Bench decision of this Court declining to interfere with order passed by Board of Revenue affirming order passed by RAA, Bikaner setting aside transfer of land in favor of respondents and directing resumption of land to State possession of land has not been taken and others respondents continue to be in possession if it is so District Collector should take appropriate steps to take possession of land forthwith in result petition fails it is hereby dismissed with observation as above no order as to costs – Petition is dismissed
Sangeet Lodha, J.
This petition is directed against the order dated 17/18.4.96 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5.12.83 of the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Bikaner, affirming the order dated 19.3.80 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar and further directing the resumption of the disputed land by the State, stands dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner purchased 25 bighas land comprising Square No. 36/337 in Chak 26 PBN, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in open auction on 28.7.61. The petitioner deposited ¼th amount of the sale price. The sale was confirmed by the State Government on 11.12.61. On the notice being issued for depositing the remaining ¾th amount, the petitioner moved an application to the Tehsildar that the bid was made by him on behalf of Smt. Jaswant Kaur and others, the respondents No. 4 to 7 herein and that the amount was also deposited by him on their behalf and therefore, the entries in the record showing his name may be corrected and the remaining amount may be realised from the actual purchaser of the land, the respondents No. 4 to 7 herein. The Tehsildar made a report which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization and the matter was referred to the State Government. Vide order dated 30.7.62, the name of the petitioner herein was ordered to be substituted by the names of the respondents No. 4 to 7. The respondents No. 4 to 7 deposited the remaining amount and patta of the land was issued in their name. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 11 r/w Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 ("the Act") before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar for cancellation of the allotment. The application was allowed by the District Collector vide order dated 28.12.77 and the allotment made in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 7 was cancelled and the possession of the land was directed to be handed over to the petitioner herein. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents No. 4 to 7 preferred an appeal before the RAA, Bikaner, which was allowed vide order dated 22.2.79 and the matter was remanded for inquiry afresh to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar.
3. After remand, the District Collector allowed the application vide order dated 19.3.80 and cancelled the mutation entered in the names of the respondents No. 4 to 7. The District Collector issued a further direction that the possession of the disputed land be handed over to the petitioner herein. The order passed by the District Collector, as aforesaid, was appealed against by the respondents No. 4 to 7 before the RAA, Bikaner. The appeal preferred by the respondents No. 4 to 7 was dismissed by the RAA, Bikaner vide order dated 5.12.83, however, the order of the Collector was modified to the extent directing handing over of the possession to the petitioner and it was ordered that the land shall stand resumed to the State Government.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.12.83 passed by the RAA, Bikaner, the petitioner as also the respondents No. 4 to 7, preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue. The appeal preferred by the respondents No. 4 to 7 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.3.91.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.80 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, the order dated 5.12.83 passed by the RAA, Bikaner and order dated 19.3.91 passed by the Board of Revenue, the respondents No. 4 to 7 preferred a writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1465/91, before this Court, which stood dismissed after due consideration on merits vide order dated 10.7.95. After decision of the writ petition preferred by the respondents No. 4 to 7 by this Court, as aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned dated 18.4.96. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
