Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Ramesh S/o Kishan – Petitioner
Versus
Manguram S/o Ram Sahai – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19147 of 2017
Decided On : 05-11-2024
Key Points: - The court held that land allotment cannot be canceled after significant delay without proof of fraud or misrepresentation. (!) - The application under Rule 14(4) was filed after eleven years, and there is no explicit time limit but proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time. (!) (!) - The Board’s cancellation order was set aside; RAA’s order upholding allotment was affirmed, noting lack of fraud or misrepresentation and the delay undermining the cancellation. (!) - Rule 14(4) empowers cancellation for fraud, misrepresentation, violation of rules, or breach of allotment conditions, but requires due process including an opportunity to be heard. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The petitioner demonstrated cultivation on the land per revenue records; respondents’ encroachment history and lack of challenge to the allotment were considered. (!) (!) - The court referenced established precedent that actions must be initiated within a reasonable time when no limitation is provided. (!) - The matter involved land allotted in 1989, with proceedings initiated in 2000, and final determination in 2017, leading to setting aside the Board’s order. (!) (!) (!)
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereafter ‘the Board’).
2. The relevant facts are that patta for khasra No. 128/150 measuring two bigha eight biswas situated in village Govindpura, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.1989. The respondents on 07.08.2000 filed an application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short ‘Rules of 1970’). The Additional Collector vide order dated 12.04.2001 set aside the order of allotment. The Revenue Appellate Authority (hereafter ‘RAA’) allowed the appeal upholding the order of allotment on 11.09.2008. The appeal of the respondent was accepted by the Board on 21.08.2017. Hence, the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 was filed after the delay of eleven years. The petitioner had proved cultivating possession on the land. The grounds prescribed under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 for cancellation of the allotment were not applicable in present case.
4. As per contra, the land of the petitioner is a small strip encircled by the land of the respondents and the land was wrongly allotted to the petitioner. The possession of the land in question is of respondents and the land was never cultivated by the petitioner. There is no limitation for filing an application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970.
5. Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’) is enabling provision for allotment of agricultural land to the landless people as per manner prescribed in Rules. The Rules of 1970 were framed by the State Government for allotment of agricultural land to landless persons.
6. Rule 14 deals with the condition for allotment of land. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970 stipulates the condition for cancellation of the allotment. Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 is reproduced:
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made by a Sub Divisional Office or a Tehsildar or a Tehsildar under the rules repealed by rule 21 of the rules either suo-moto or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment:
Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard.
xxx xxx xxx
7. Under the aforesaid Rule, cancellation of allotment can be done in case the allotment is a result of fraud, misrepresentation or made against the Rules or the allottee has violated the conditions of the allotment.
8. The conditions of allotment have been mentioned in Form V as prescribed under the Rules of 1970.
9. Form V is reproduced below:
(See Rule 15)
Order of Allotment of Unoccupied Government Land
1. Name of allottee Mr./Mrs./Miss.................S/o/D/o...............Age............R/o.................. Tehsil.....................District.........................
1.A. Name of the Joint allottee
Shri.................S/o.................Age...... (husband) and the Smt................. W/o.................Age....................(wife) R/o.....................Tehsil..............District...............
2. Date and time of receipt of application as recorded in Column 3 of the Register of Applications for Allotment of Unoccupied land in Form IV.
3. Date and place of order of allotment.
4. Particulars of Land Allotted:
(i) Name of village.
(ii) Reference to entry in the List Unoccupied Government Lands corrected upto 30th September, 20............mentioned in Form I.
(iii) Khasra number of land allotted.
(iv) Area in hectares of Rent allotted.
(v) Soil classification.
(vi) Means of irrigation, if any, wit
The court ruled that land allotment cannot be canceled after significant delay without proof of fraud or misrepresentation.
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.
Fraud vitiates all acts; a transferee cannot assert rights over a void allotment, and failure to provide notice does not confer legitimacy on such a transaction.
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'....
The cancellation of land allotment based on the violation of land transfer rules under Rule 6(3) & (4) and the authority to cancel allotment under Rule 6(10) of the Rules of 1972.
The Board of Revenue correctly upheld agricultural allotments following proper procedures, and significant delays in filing petitions do not warrant judicial intervention.
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.
The court established that long-standing land allotments should not be canceled without substantial justification, emphasizing the need for fair treatment of agriculturalists.
Non-compliance with lease conditions and non-utilization of allotted land can justify the cancellation of the lease by the authority.
Civil Court decrees must be respected by Revenue Courts; cancellation of land allotments requires statutory authority and adherence to reasonable timelines.
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
