Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Dungar Singh, S/o. Ranjeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue Department and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16375 Of 2021
Decided On : 07-03-2024
Land Exchange - Land Allotment - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 101, Section 48, Rule 24AA
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landless agriculturist, was in possession of a piece of land for over 50 years. He applied for regularization of the land, but the land allotted to him was different from the land in his possession. He sought exchange of the land, which was rejected by the Collector. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land allotted to the petitioner was not cultivable, and the purpose of allotment under Section 101 of the Act of 1956 would be frustrated if the same land was allotted. The court also noted that the provisions of Section 48 of the Act of 1955 and Rule 24AA allowed for exchange of land, especially when both lands belonged to the State.
Issues: The issues involved delay in filing the application, the applicability of land exchange provisions, and the cultivability of the allotted land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of land allotment for agricultural activities would be defeated if non-cultivable land was allotted. It also emphasized the provisions of Section 48 of the Act of 1955 and Rule 24AA, which allowed for exchange of land held directly from the State Government.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the rejection of the land exchange was quashed, and the Collector was directed to allot the land in favor of the petitioner in exchange.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that the petitioner being landless agriculturist was in possession of land measuring 38 bighas but he was not aware of the khasra number of his land which is in his possession. While the petitioner was in possession of the subject piece of land, he preferred an application for regularization of the land by way of allotment. The petitioner’s application for regularization/allotment of land was considered and he was allotted a land measuring 38 bighas. The allotment of the land was made to the petitioner in the year 1977 and the land was mutated in his favour in Khasra No.134/269. After marking of the khasras in the area concerned, the petitioner came to know that the land, which is actually in his possession, is not the same land which has been mentioned in the allotment order and the land which has been allotted to him falls in Khasra No.134/269 and is slightly away from the land which is in his possesion. The land of the petitioner was demarcated as a land of Khasra No.173 of Village Bhojasar. The petitioner applied for regularization of the land under his possession situated in Khasra No.173 Village Bhojasar. Since the land which is in possession of the petitioner falling in Khasra No.173 was not allotted to the petitioner, therefore, notices under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) were issued by Tehsildar, Jaisalmer. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the respondents with a prayer that the land which was allotted to him in the year 1977, falls in Khasra No.134/269 whereas the land which is actually in his possession falls in Khasra No.173, thus, the land which is actually in his possession may be allotted to him by resorting the provisions relating to the exchange of land. The application preferred by the petitioner was recommended by the Gram Panchayat, Hameera vide Resolution No.3 in its Special Gram Sabha dated 07.11.2017. Thereafter, the Tehsildar Jaisalmer vide his letter dated 27.03.2018, also gave ‘No Objection’ with respect to the exchange of land from Khasra No.134/269 to Khasra No. 173.
3. When the request of the petitioner was not acceded to, he preferred an application on 05.03.2019 (Annex.10) to the District Collector for exchange of the land. On the application so preferred by the petitioner, the matter was got enquired and a factual report was submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer. Thereafter, the District Collector, Jaisalmer vide letter dated 29.06.2020 directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer to personally visit the site and submit a report regarding feasibility of exchange. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer, after visiting the site, submitted his report dated 15.07.2021 stating that the land which was actually allotted to the petitioner in Khasra No.134/269 is not feasible for agricultural purposes and in exchange, the petitioner may be allotted land from Khasra No.173 as he is in possession of that land. Despite the matter having been duly enquired into and positive report having been submitted to the Collector, Jaisalmer, the application of the petitioner for exchange of the land has been rejected vide order dated 01.09.2021 (Annex.15) by the Designated Officer (Revenue) Collector, Jaisalmer. Aggrieved of the order dated 01.09.2021, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently and fervently submits that the order dated 01.09.2021 has been passed without taking into consideration the two reports submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer. The reports very clearly depict that the land which was actually allotted to the petitioner in Khasra No.134/269 is not cultivable, thus, the land which is actually in his possession in Khasra No.173 may be allotted to him in exchange. Learned counsel further submits that the land which is in possession of the petitioner
The main legal point established is that the purpose of land allotment for agricultural activities must be upheld, and the provisions of land exchange under Section 48 of the Act of 1955 and Rule 24A....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the State Government to allot equivalent land to the petitioner and other persons within a stipulated period, emphasizing the nat....
Prevention of encroachment on common land - Absence of any such order from competent authority qua acceptance of offer made for seeking exchange of land, attestation of mutations, on this count alone....
As per Section 13(1) of the Act of 1954, there was a condition precedent that, if any khatedar transfers his rights or interest in land, then he shall get previous consent in writing from the State G....
The court emphasized the limitations on land allotment to educational institutions under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the discretionary power of the State Government i....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances and intentions of the land allottees, especially in cases involving resettlement of refugees, and held that the orders directing v....
The State largesse cannot be distributed arbitrarily, and the petitioner's mere application for land allotment did not confer any right.
The petitioners must demonstrate the violation of land allotment provisions and raise objections in a timely manner to challenge land allotment decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
