Honble JAIN, J. — By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the Dy. Commissioner Colonisation dated 27.9.1980 (Ex.1) and the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 25.1.1982 (Ex.3) and the order passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue dated 13.9.1983 (Ex.4). It has also been prayed that the non-petitioners may kindly be restrained from interfering in the cultivatory possession of the petitioner in the disputed land.

(2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted 24 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land in Chak no. 3. B.W.M. Square No. 294/335 on temporary cultivation in Samwant Year 2027 which was renewed year to year till Samwat Year 2030. On 25.9.1973 the petitioner applied for permanent allotment of the land in dispute before the Allotting Authority, Sri Vijaynagar, which was granted vide order dated 21.12.1973. Against the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner, a complaint was lodged by one Uttam Singh and others before the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Sri Vijaynagar to the effect that Mst. Jangeer Kaur has obtained allotment declaring herself a widow where as her husband is alive and living in Punjab and further that the applicants husband has land in his name in Punjab, therefore, the allotment made in favour of the applicant may be cancelled. The Allotting Authority after making enquiry cancelled the allotment vide order dated 27.8.80 Dissatisfied with the cancellation order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, but the same was rejected vide order dated 25.1.1982 (Ex.3). A revision was also filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision by his order dated 13.9.1983. Hence, this writ petition.

(3). This writ petition has been filed on 16.1.1984. This Court while admitting the petitioner on 30.1.1984 ordered that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. On 31.12.1984 it was ordered that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question till the final disposal of the writ petition provided the petitioner furnishes a security to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) for payment of mesne profits to the State of Rajasthan in case of dismissal of the writ petition @ 150/- per bigha per agricultural years commencing from March 22, 1984 upto the date of decision of the writ petition. It was further ordered that the security shall be furnished within two months from today and will be for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- in the first instance. Petitioner Jangecr Kaur expired on 17.4.93 and she was represented through her legal representatives Guru Bachansingh and Balvinder.

(4). The writ petition has come up before us and as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(5). Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if the allegation of the non-petitioners that the petitioner obtained land by concealment is accepted as such still then the same does not render the petitioner ineligible for allotment of land as the husband of the petitioner had only l/4th share in 185. Bighas of ancestral land in Punjab which comes to only 4 1/2 Bighas of land and, therefore, she is entitled for the rest of the land. He has contended that the petitioner is in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 20 years and on this count also the allotment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. He has relied on Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue (1), Tej Singh vs. State of Raj. (2) and Makhan Singh vs. State (3).

(6). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the cases cited at the Bar.

(7). In Brij Lals (supra), their lordships have observed that rejection of permanent allotment is without any basis and not proper on the ground that the applicant was minor on the date of tempo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document