Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Alok Sharma, J.
Richhpal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 9975 of 2018
Decided On : 29-07-2019
Important Points
Subject
Land Law - Allotment of Land
Headnote
LAND ALLOTMENT - RESUMPTION - RIGHT TO ALLOTMENT - RULE 20 (3) OF THE RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE (ALLOTMENT OF LAND FOR THE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES) RULES, 1970 - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - CONDITIONS - PROCEDURE - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, as legal heirs of Kana Ram, an allottee of a cooperative society, claimed allotment of land under Rule 20 (3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for the Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (Rules of 1970), after the land was resumed by the State. The JDA opposed the claim, arguing that the petitioners had no right to the land as the society was liquidated and the land was resumed, and that the petitioners' application under Rule 20 (3) was belated and an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners' application under Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1970 was maintainable and that the District Level Committee had the jurisdiction to consider the application and decide whether the petitioners were entitled to allotment. The court also held that the petitioners were required to maintain status quo with regard to the land in issue for six weeks during which the District Level Committee was directed to dispose of the application.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had a right to allotment under Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1970 on an application belatedly filed on 11.7.2018? 2. Whether the District Level Committee had the jurisdiction to consider the petitioners' application and decide whether they were entitled to allotment? 3. Whether the petitioners were required to maintain status quo with regard to the land in issue during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Level Committee?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1970 provides for allotment of land to members or successors of members of a cooperative society whose land was resumed under the Rajasthan (Allotment of Land to Cooperative Societies) Rules, 1959, subject to certain conditions. 2. The District Level Committee constituted under the Rules of 1970 has the jurisdiction to consider applications for allotment under Rule 20 (3) and to decide whether the applicants are entitled to allotment. 3. The petitioners were required to maintain status quo with regard to the land in issue during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Level Committee to prevent any breach of law or creation of a law and order situation.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and directed the petitioners to pursue their application under Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1970 before the District Level Committee, which was directed to dispose of the application within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. The court also directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in issue for six weeks during which the District Level Committee was directed to dispose of the application.
Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Amit Kuri, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Alok Sharma, J. - The matter comes up on an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte ad interim order dated 9.5.2018.
2. With the consent of counsel for the petitioners and the JDA, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. Mr.Amit Kuri counsel appearing for the respondent JDA submitted that the petitioners now have no right as claimed to any land in Khasra Nos.76, 77, 78, 80, 81 & 82 in Village Kukas, Tehsil Amer inasmuch as they are the successors of one Kana Ram who was an allottee of the Kupanya Badh Sanyukt Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Kukas (hereinafter 'Samiti') which itself on 10.6.1959 had been allotted 400 bighas by the State Government under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land to Co-Operative Societies) Rules, 1959 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1959') but was subsequently liquidated on 23.12.2005 and the land allotted to it resumed on 7.11.2014 under the Collector's order. The liquidation of the Samiti and resumption of land earlier allotted to it has attained finality. No member/ allottee of the Samiti or any successor of such member can claim any legal right in the land initially allotted to the Samiti and thereafter by it to its members and its protection by this Court. Mr.Amit Kuri submitted that following the resumption dated 7.11.2014 the Samiti and its members and their successors, would be for all purposes, mere trespassers. But in fact the petitioners are not even in that situation as they have been amongst others evicted and dispossessed from time to time as on 21.4.2018 and 4.10.2018. Even mutation of the land in dispute presently stands with the JDA under mutation no.790 dated 19.11.2014. Mr.Amit Kuri submitted that in the circumstance the petitioners have no right under Rule 20 (3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for the Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1970') which they now belatedly seek to agitate after filing of the petition. Mr.Amit Kuri submitted that as a result the petitioners' purported application under Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1970 belatedly filed on 11.7.2018 subsequent to the filing of the petition on 30.4.2018 is an abuse of the process, a mere fig leaf in a crass attempt to appropriate public property and hence is of no event. The petitioners cannot maintain this petition on such a bogus application.
4. Mr.Lokesh Sharma, at the outset, submitted that the petitioners do not wish to press the challenge to the resumption order dated 7.11.2014. He however submitted that pursuant to the Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1970 brought in by the amendment on 17.9.2007, the petitioners in continuous cultivatory possession of the land in issue as successors of the original allottee of the society, one Kana Ram, moved an application for allotment on 11.7.2018. Mr.Lokesh Sharma submitted that the lawful consideration of the said application is a valuable right and till it is taken to its logical conclusion and finally adjudicated, in the interregnum the petitioners be protected and not be dispossessed from the land in issue in this petition.
5. Mr.Amit Kuri in rejoinder submitted that subsequent to the promulgation of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereafter 'the Act of 1982') in view of Section 54 thereof all sewai chak land vests absolutely with the JDA. He submitted that following the liquidation of the Samiti which was originally allotted 400 bighas including the land in issue and the resumption of the land allotted to it under the Rules of 1959 on 7.11.2014, the petitioners as the legal heirs of the allottee of the Samiti have no right whatsoever even with reference to Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1970. He submitted that following the resumption, the land bore the character of sawai chak and its vests under Section 54 of the Act of 1982 with the JDA. Mr.Amit Kuri drew the attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the case of Archana Kashyap & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Othe
