The court established that long-standing land allotments should not be canceled without substantial justification, emphasizing the need for fair treatment of agriculturalists.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-State being aggrieved with the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue') in revision petition No.3881/2009 whereby, while accepting the revision filed by the respondents, the Board of Revenue has ordered for closure of the proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of Rule 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Colonization(Sale And Allotment of Government Land In Indra Gandhi Canal Area) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules of 1975')-

2. Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor of applicant Indraj had applied for permanent allotment of land under the provisions of Rules of 1975. The said application came to be rejected by the allotting authority in the year 1975 on the ground that the applicant was not bonafide resident of State of Rajasthan prior to 1.4.1975. The applicant Indraj had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed on 31.05.1976. Thereafter, again he preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which also came to be dismissed in the year 1977. Then applicant Indraj had preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was decided by this Court on 09.04.1979 with a direction to the allotment committee to decide his application for allotment of land on merits.

3. Pursuant to the said judgment passed by this Court, the claim of the applicant Indraj for permanent allotment of agriculture land was again considered and it was declared that applicant Indraj is entitled for allotment of 20.15 bighas of the agriculture land.

4. It appears that despite the said decision of the allotment committee dated 15.01.1982, he was allotted only 19 bighas of un-command land. Applicant Indraj again approached the allotment committee contending that he is entitled for 20.15 bighas of command land but only 19 bighas of un-command land was allotted to him.

5. The allotment committee vide order dated 27.12.1986 ordered that applicant Indraj was found entitled for allotment of 20.15 bighas of command land but was allotted only 19 bighas of un-command land, therefore, earlier allotment of 19 bighas of un-command land was cancelled and he was allotted 24.10 bighas of un-command land at another place. Pursuant to that order of allottment committee, applicant Indraj was allotted 24.10 bighas of un-command land in Murba No. 163/63 of Chak 1 JSM. It appears that Indraj was handed over possession of the said land and he started cultivation on the same land.

6. In the year 1999, i.e. after thirteen years, the colonization authorities moved an application before the District Collector, Sriganganagar under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 alleging that though applicant Indraj was entitled for 20.15 bighas of land but he was allotted 24.10 bighas and, as such, 3.15 bighas of excess land was allotted to him, therefore, the said allotment of excess land be cancelled.

7. The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 27.05.2002 allowed the said application and ordered for resumption of 3.15 of bighas of land from applicant Indraj.

8. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.05.2002, applicant Indraj had filed a review application before the District Collector, however, the same was rejected by the District Collector vide order dated 16.02.2009, against which, a revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue in the year 2009 itself, which came to be decided by the Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 29.08.2019.

9. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Rules of 1975, a landless agriculturalist is entitled for permanent allotment of 25 bighas of land and as applicant Indraj was already holding 4.05 bighas of land, he was found suitable for allotment of 20.10bighas of land, however, due to inadvertence, instead of 20.10 bighas of agricultural land, he was allotted 24.10 bighas of l