IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, finding no violations of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules and affirming the finality of prior allotments.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant (writ petitioner) has challenged the judgment dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.282/1997 (Resham Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan), dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, preferred against the order dated 07.01.1991 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisinghnagar; judgment dated 22.04.1992 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar and; the judgment dated 30.12.1996 passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.

2. The bone of contention in the present case is 25 bighas of command area land comprising Kila Nos. 4 to 7 in Murraba No.198/372, Chak 2NZPD, Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar. As reflected from the record, the appellant’s claim for allotment of such land was rejected by the learned Revenue Authorities below. The challenge in the present case is also regarding the allotment of such land, as is made in favour of the respondent no.5 (since deceased, represented through his LRs herein), in phased manner i.e., on 26.11.1975 and 22.12.1976.

2.1. As per the appellant herein, the impugned action of refusal of allotment in question in favour of the appellant by the Allotting Authority concerned is violative of Rule 4(3), 4(4) & Rule 13(5)(b) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1975’); so far as allotment in question made in favour of the respondent No.5 is concerned, the same, as alleged, has been done in violation of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975. 2.2. As per the claim of the appellant (writ petitioner), since the year 1966, the land comprising Murraba Nos.198/371 & 198/372 total measuring 44 bighas was under temporary cultivatory possession of the appellant‘s father. It has been further claimed at the time when the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post 1955 Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders & Other Landless Persons in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1971 were in force, the appellant’s father applied and was allotted 19 bighas of land vide order dated 02.11.1972. Even when the remaining 25 bighas (out of 44 bighas of land) were ordered to be vested in the Government, the appellant’s father continued to be in possession of the entire land.

2.2.1. Although the Rules of 1971 were declared as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaila Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 1436, the allotment of land made in favour of the appellant’s father remained intact, thereby consequently attained finality. Pursuant to the said verdict, the Rules of 1975, upon being notified in the Official Gazette on 08.08.1975, came into force with effect from the said date itself.

2.3. The appellant also claimed that he being the eldest son of his father, was entitled to the allotment of land as per Rule 4(4) read with Rule 13(5)(b) of the Rules of 1975, which vital aspect, as alleged, has been clearly ignored by the learned Revenue Authorities below prior to passing of the impugned order/judgments, rejecting the claim of the appellant for such allotment.

3. Dr. Ashok Soni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aman Soni, Mr. Yash Dadhich & Mr. Romil Bagrecha, appearing on behalf of the appellant (writ petitioner) submitted that prior to making the allotment in question in favour of respondent No.5, compliance of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975 was not made, as the appellant, being the affected party, was not served with any notice in this regard, nor any such notice was ever published, as mandated by the said provision of law.

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the matter of allotment in question in favour of respondent No.5, prescriptions of Rule 4(4) and Rule 13(5)(b) have been violated, and thu