IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of the Rajasthan Colonization Rules, 1975, particularly regarding the definition of 'landless person' and the priorities for land allotment under Rule 7.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since both the writ petitions arise out of a common judgment, therefore they are being heard and decided finally by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 24.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner and the order dated 30.06.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

4. Briefly, the facts noted in the present writ petitions are that the petitioners, being the bonafide agriculturists and residents of State of Rajasthan by way of filing an application applied for allotment of land as per Rule 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area), Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1975’). Considering the petitioners eligible for allotment of land, the respondents vide orders dated 29.12.1993 & 25.08.1993 allowed the application of the petitioners and allotted 24.5 Bighas and 25 Bighas of land to the petitioners respectively.

5. After allotment of the land, the petitioners were handed over the possession of their respective lands and they started cultivating the lands allotted to them. All of a sudden, the petitioners were served with the notices dated 03.07.1996 by the Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner for cancellation of the allotment of their lands. The notices received were duly replied by the petitioners but the learned Commissioner (Colonization), considering the reply filed by petitioners, vide order dated 24.10.1997, cancelled the allotment of the lands made in favour of the petitioners and the lands were ordered to be recorded in the name of State Government and the same was directed to be auctioned by taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1975.

6. The order dated 24.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner (Colonization) was assailed by the petitioners by way of filing revision petitions before the Board of Revenue but the Board of Revenue, while rejecting the revision petitions filed by the petitioners vide order dated 30.06.1999, affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Colonization) on 24.10.1997.

7. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned Commissioner (Colonization) had committed an error while passing the order dated 24.10.1997 as the deleted proviso of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1975 had been made applicable, although the same was deleted from the Statute Book on 15.07.1993. He submits that the deleted provisions were not required to be considered as the allotment orders in the case of the petitioners were made in the month of August, 1993 and December, 1993 and on the date of allotment orders, the proviso to Rule 7 was not on the Statute Book as the same was deleted in the month of July, 1993 itself. Thus, there was no occasion for the Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner to take recourse to the deleted proviso while rejecting the allotment made in favour of the petitioners.

8. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the definition of a ‘landless person’ as mentioned in Rule 2(1)(xiii) of the Rules of 1975 clearly shows that a person who is a resident of Rajasthan and has been, by profession, a bonafide agriculturist or a bonafide agricultural labourer having agriculture as a primary source of his income and who either does not hold any land anywhere in India or holds land less than 25 Bighas will be considered a ‘landless person’, but it does not include the temporary lease cultivation lease holder, therefore, the petitioners are falling within the definition of ‘landless person’. Learned counsel submits that as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1975, the petitioners were rightly given the priority for allotment of the land.

9. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner had completely failed while