Honble MITAL CJ — Respondent No.5 got the allotment of land in dispute on 15.2.1974. Against that allotment, an application was made on the ground that the allottee was not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan on 1.4.55 and, therefore, the allotment should be cancelled. The allotting authority went into the matter and recorded a finding that on 1.4.55 the allottee was not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan and, therefore, he was not entitled for allotment. The allotment was cancelled on 27.07.1976. Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed in default and the application for restoration was also dismissed. He went up in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The matter was decided by the Board of Revenue on 28.07.1982. They came to the conclusion that while there was no fault in the order of the appellate authority in not restoring the appeal, they noticed that in the mean time the High Court had struck down the provision, which said that the citizen must be a bonafide resident of State of Rajasthan on 1.4.55, is ultra vires and, therefore, exercised their power under Section 9 of the Land Revenue Act (for short, the Act) that is the general power of superintendence and control on all revenue courts and revenue officers and in the interest of justice said that since there was no requirement in law to be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan on 1.4.55, the order of cancellation was without jurisdiction and restored the allotment to respondent No.5.

(2). During the pendency of proceedings initiated by respondent No. 5 in the year 1980, the same very land was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner was heard by the Board of Revenue while passing order dated 28-7-82. Since order of restoration of the land was passed in favour of respondent No.5, this writ petition has been filed.

(3). Only argument raised on behalf of the writ petitioner is that in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, the order of cancellation of allotment could not be set aside. In support of this argument he relies on the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution as dealt with by the Supreme Court in Mohd.Yunus vs. Mohd Mustaqim (1).

(4). As against this, the counsel for respondent No. 5 cited another decision of the Supreme Court wherein the provision of Section 9 of the Act was specifically considered in Surendra Pal Singh vs. Board of Revenue (2) and it was held that it is open to the court to exercise this power of superintendence on all its subordinate courts in order to regulate the functioning of the subordinate courts so as to keep them within their respective sphere of jurisdiction. If the subordinate court dis-regards any specific provision of law and does something illegal, it is open to the Board of Revenue to interfere and set the matter right.

(5). The above case went to the Supreme Court for consideration of the question of law that if appealies to the Board of Revenue and instead of filing appeal, can Board of Revenue exercise power under Section 9 of the Act or not. It was ruled that instead of exercising the appellate jurisdiction, it is open to the Board of Revenue to exercise its superintendence and control power under Sec.9 of the Act.

(6). Seeing the facts of the instant case, it was one of the fitest case of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act in the interest of justice because the order of cancellation of allotment was passed on a ground which was held to be beyond the purview of law as the provision of law that an allotment can be made only to a person, who is a bonafide resident of State of Rajasthan on 1.4.55 was held to be bad and was struck down by the High Court.

(7). It was then argued that petitioner is a third person and his rights have come into being and, therefore, there should have been no interference by the Board under Sec.9 of the Act.

(8). We are not impressed by this argument as the non-petitioner No.5 Hari Singh, in whose favour allotment of land was made in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document