THE TRANSACTION OF SALE EFFECTED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 (1) BEING INVALID, THE LAND WAS LIABLE TO BE RESUMED TO THE STATE.

JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 8.12.07 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition preferred by first respondent assailing the order dated 24.4.95 of the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, order dated 14.8.95 of the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA'), Sri Ganganagar and order dated 13.7.98 of the Board of Revenue, has been allowed and the orders impugned have been quashed.

2. The facts relevant are that the command land ad measuring 12 bighas comprising Square No.211/421, Kila No.14 to 25 in Chak 13 BLM (A) Tehsil-Vijay Nagar, was allotted to one Shri Lal Chand s/o Ghasi Ram and sanad was issued in his favour. Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 ('the Act'), which prohibits the tenant from transferring his rights or interest in the land by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or gift or creating a charge thereon, without previous consent in writing of the State Government, however, Lal Chand proceeded to sell the land for consideration by way of agreement to sell dated 5.6.86 in favour of Bela Ram s/o Chamba Ram. Bela Ram made an application under Section 13A of the Act, for declaration of sale as valid by making payment of compounding fee to the State. It is stated that Bela Ram expired and thereafter, the agreement to sell was cancelled by mutual consent of Chandra Bhan S/o Bela Ram and Lal Chand on 15.4.90. However, on 9.8.90, Chandra Bhan s/o Bela Ram made an application for depositing compounding fee stating that in family partition, the said land has fallen in his share. The application was rejected by the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 24.4.95 holding that the time for depositing compounding fee has lapsed and accordingly, the property which was already in possesion of the receiver pursuant to order dated 1.10.92 was ordered to be resumed. It is not disputed that neither Chandra Bhan nor Lal Chand questioned the legality of order dated 24.4.95 and the same attained finality. However, aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Collector as aforesaid, Smt. Bhagwani Devi, the first respondent herein, preferred an appeal before the RAA, Sri Ganganagar, taking the stand that the said land has been purchased by her from allottee Lal Chand by way of registered sale deed dated 5.7.91 and at that relevant time, the requirement of previous consent of the State Government was not there and thus, the resumption of the land to the State is erroneous. The appeal preferred was dismissed by the RAA, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 14.8.95. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, which stood dismissed by order dated 13.7.98. The writ petition preferred by the first respondent before this Court assailing the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as aforesaid, has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order impugned. Hence, this intra-court appeal.

3. The writ petition preferred by the first respondent has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court observing that before passing the order of resumption of the land in favour of the State, Smt. Bhagwani Devi, who had purchased the land by way of registered sale deed was not extended an opportunity of hearing and the notification dated 22.4.91 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under proviso to Section 13(1) of the Act, excluding the lands falling in Indira Gandhi Canal, Bhakhara and Gang Canal Project Area from applicability of the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, is not taken into consideration by the authorities concerned.

4. Learned Deputy Government Counsel submitted that the land allotted to Lal Chand was ordered to be resumed vide order dated 24.4.95, while disposing of the application dated 9.8.90 preferred by Chandra Bhan s/o Bela Ram under Section 13A of the Act and thus, there was no occasion for the Addit