DWARKA PRASAD, J. —In this writ petition, the petitioner has chal-lenged the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer dated October 6, 1978, setting aside the allotment of a piece of land from Khasra No. 47 in village Bhadal, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, made earlier in favour of the petitioner.

2. The circumstances, which have been given rise to this writ petition, may be briefly stated; It is undisputed that the land comprised in Khasra No. 47 in village Bhadal was recorded as "Gair Mumkin Talai". in the revenue records even at the time when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force and also when the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 came into force. At some stage subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake, is said to have converted the land in dispute from "Gair Mumkin" to Barani" and, thereafter the Tehsil Advisory Committee allotted a piece of land out of the aforesaid Khasra No. 47, to the petitioner. The allotment made in favour of the petitioner was challenged by means of a revision petition before the State Government which was transferred to the Collector Jaipur for disposal. The Collector, by his order dated July 9, 1976, held that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was invalid and void as the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to convert "Gair Mumkin Talai" into cultivable Barani land. The Collector, therefore, held that the land could not have been validly allotted to the petitioner and the allotment was consequently cancelled. The order passed by the Collector was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated November 30, 1976.

3. The Board of Revenue also came to the same conclusion and relying upon a decision of the larger bench of the Board of Revenue in Durga Prasad Vs. Panna Lal (1), held that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake, acted entirely without jurisdiction in converting the land from "Gair Mumkin Talai" to Barani and as such the entire proceedings relating to allotment of land were ab-initio void. The Board of Revenue held that the land in dispute, comprised in Khasra No. 47, still continue to be Gair Mumkin Talai and was not available for allotment and that the allotment of a portion thereof in favour of the petitioner was, therefore, invalid and void. The Board also found certain irregularities and illegalities in the method of allotment employed by the Land Allotment Advisory Committee at the time of making allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the revision petition filed before the State Government could not have been transferred by it to the Collector for disposal and that the revision petition under section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, should have been heard by the State Govt. itself or at best it could have been transferred to the Board of Revenue. It is not necessary to decide this question in this case, as the Board of Revenue has also decided the matter on merits and has held that the initial allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner was void and invalid. If the initial allotment of the land, made in favour of the petitioner, was invalid and void, then the petitioner has no right, title or interest left in the land in dispute and the question as to whether the revision petition regarding the cancellation of such allotment should be heard by the State Government or by the Board of Revenue or the Collector is of not such consequence.

5. As the land was Gair Mumkin Talai and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake, had no jurisdiction to convert the same into cultivable Barani land, the Board of Revenue is right in holding that the land was not open for allotment to the petitioner or to any other person. Sub-rule (4) of rule 4 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for agriculture purposes) Rules, 1957 provides that land recorded as Gair Mumkin in the current settlement, was not available for allotmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document