The main legal point established is that the power to cancel land allotment must be exercised within a reasonable time, and khatedari rights cannot be withdrawn after their conferment.

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, ’the BoR’) dismissing the Appeal/LR/1753/2016 preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in Appeal No.30/2012/75 LR Act whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgment dated 29.03.2003 passed by the Additional Collector (VI), Jaipur cancelling allotment of the land in question in their favour, was allowed.

2. The facts in brief are that predecessor in interest of the respondents, Shri Rudmal S/of Sh. Kanaram, was allotted 15 bighas of land out of khasra no.5 Village Mothu Ka Bas, Tehsil Amber on 09.09.1958. Initially, gair khatedari rights were conferred which, with the passage of time, were converted into khatedari rights. The District Collector, Jaipur vide its order dated 04.09.1996, converted 7 bighas 10 biswa out of the aforesaid land for industrial purpose. The allotment was cancelled by the Additional Collector (VI), Jaipur vide its order dated 29.03.2003 on the premise that land allotted for agriculture purpose was not used so within the stipulated time. An appeal preferred by the respondents thereagainst was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 29.10.2015 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the BoR which has dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 17.01.2020, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the BoR has failed to appreciate that allotment in favour of the predecessor in interest of the respondents was cancelled as he failed to cultivate the land, the purpose for which it was allotted to him, within the stipulated period. Drawing attention of this Court towards the Rule 14(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purpose) Rules, 1970 (for brevity, ’the Rules of 1970’), he submitted that the allottee never applied for extension of time and hence, no fault could have been found with the order cancelling allotment. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submitted that since the land allotted to the predecessor in interest of the respondents was embroiled in litigation from the very inception it was allotted, he could get its physical and peaceful possession only in the year 1967. They submit that there is concurrent finding that thereafter, the allottee cultivated the land in terms of allotment letter whereupon khatedari rights were also conferred upon him. They submit that in the year 1996, a part of the land was converted for industrial purpose by the competent authority. Learned counsels further submitted that it was not permissible for the authorities to have cancelled allotment made in the year 1958 after 41 years during the interregnum, a substantial improvement was made on the land in question by them. In this regard, they relied upon co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court dated 26.08.2015 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6733/2003: Radha Kishan vs. State & Ors. and dated 05.01.2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3909/2001: Chiranji & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Anr.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. From the material on record, it is established that although the land in question was allotted in favour of the Rudmal S/o Khanaram on 09.09.1958; but, on account of its involvement in the litigation(s) from the very inception, the allottee could get its physical possession only on 22.08.1967 depriving him to put the land in question to cultivation within the time as per the allotment letter. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that till 1967, the allottee had symbolic possession only. It is not disputed that after getting its physi