The main legal point established in the judgment is that a delay of 37 years in challenging a land allotment cannot be condoned solely on the ground of lack of counter-affidavit, and the rights of the parties should be crystallized by the revenue court before cancelling the allotment.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.10.2014 passed by the respondent No.5–Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BOR’), whereby it has allowed two appeals preferred on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and set aside the judgment dated 06.03.2009 passed by the respondent No.6–Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the RAA’). The RAA had allowed two appeals preferred on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent No.4–State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar while setting aside the allotment order dated 06.12.1967 and consequential order dated 24.01.1968 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar and Sub Divisional Officer, Karanpur respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that way back in the year 1967 precisely on 06.12.1967, a land measuring about 4 Bigha 13 Biswa situated in Chak No.1-V-First, Murraba No.77, Kila No.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 was allotted to one Pratap Singh by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar on depositing the requisite payment. The Sub Divisional Officer, Karanpur passed the consequential order dated 24.01.1968 and pursuant to that Pratap Singh deposited the requisite amount and thereafter the allotment order was issued in his favour on 24.01.1968. Thereupon, name of Pratap Singh was entered into the revenue record and Khatedari Sanad was issued in his favour in the year 1994 by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. It appears that after the death of Pratap Singh, name of respondent Nos.1 to 3 were entered into the revenue record and they are recorded as Khatedars of the land in dispute.

3. In the year 2004, the petitioners as well as the State filed two separate appeals under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 in the court of RAA challenging the allotment of the land in dispute to Pratap Singh by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. In those appeals, it was claimed by the petitioners as well as the State that the land, which was allotted to Pratap Singh, is the land of deity and the same has illegally been allotted to Pratap Singh by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. It was also claimed that Pratap Singh, in connivance with the revenue authorities, got allotted the land in dispute in his favour by producing forged Jamabandi and other revenue records, wherein the land of deity has wrongly been shown as government land by making interpolations and corrections in the Jamabandi.

4. The RAA allowed those appeals vide judgment dated 06.03.2009 and set aside the order dated 06.12.1967 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, whereby it was decided to allot the land in dispute to Pratap Singh, and also set aside the allotment order dated 24.01.1968 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karanpur.

5. Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred two separate appeals before the BOR. Both the appeals have been allowed by BOR vide impugned judgment dated 27.10.2014 while setting aside the judgment dated 06.03.2009 passed by the RAA.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the BOR has grossly erred in allowing both the appeals filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is submitted that from the material placed on record by the petitioners as well as the State, it is crystal clear that the land in dispute, which was allotted to Pratap Singh in the year 1967-1968, is the land of deity and it is well settled that the land of deity cannot be allotted to anybody.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the RAA has recorded a specific finding that the land in dispute was earlier recorded in the name of deity but the allottee Pratap Singh furnished the copy of Jamabandi showing the land in dispute as government land, however, the said Jamabandi was forged because there was some interpolations and corrections in the same and the name of deity was illegal