Back
[Citation : RLW 2002 RJ 660]
(Board of Revenue for Rajasthan)
Kapil Dev & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (Punia, M.)
H.S. PUNIA, MEMBER
Kapil Dev & Ors.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Revision No. 13/Sikar of 2001, decided on 12th April, 2002
Revision allowed.
The learned Collector passed the impugned order setting apart 2 hectares of land out of khasra No. 2053 which is a pasture land for allotment to non- petitioner No. 2 which is not covered by public purpose and no plan for development of industrial area was prepared and land was set apart and allotted to a single person which is not covered by Section 92 of the Act. Therefore, the learned collector has acted illegally while exercising jurisdiction vested in him under Section 92 of the Act. (Para 10)
Similarly, the allotment made in favour of the non- petitioner No. 2 is also not covered by Rule 7 of Rules of 1955. Under Rule- 7 the Collector is empowered to change the classification of any pasture land as unoccupied culturable Government land (Sivai Chak) for allotment for agricultural or any non-agricultural. purpose. The Collector while passing the impugned order set-apart two hectares of land out of pasture land bearing khasra No. 2053 for industrial purpose and it was not declared as unoccupied culturable Government land (Sivai Chak), It appears that the Collector has exercised his jurisdiction illegally merely to benefit the non-petitioner No. 2 and the order passed by the learned Collector cannot be said to be passed in the public interest or strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, the judgment passed by the lower appellate court and the order passed by the Collector deserve to be quashed. (Para 11)
.
(2). The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on the proposal of Tehsildar, Sri Madhopur and Sub Divisional Officer, Neem Ka Thana, Collector passed an order dated 1.5.95 under Section 92 of the Act setting apart a piece of land area 2 hectares out of Khasra No. 2053 area 5.08 hectares situated at Vill. Ajitgarh for industrial purposes and by the same order the land set apart for industrial purposes was allotted to the non- petitioner No. 2 under Rajasthan land Revenue (Industrial Area Allotment) Rules, 1959 (in short ``Rules of 1959) for a value of Rs. 80,000/- on the conditions specified in the order. Five persons from Village Ajitgarh filed an appeal against the order passed by Collector, Sikar dated 1.5.95, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Now the petitioners have filed this revision petition.
(3). Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
(4). The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Collector is not empowered to set apart land for industrial purposes under Section 92 of the Act. It is also contended that every villager has right of grazing on pasture land for their cattle. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat alone is not empowered to issue no objection certificate without authority of the Panchayat and without calling a meeting, therefore, order passed by Collector was illegal and without jurisdiction which should have been set-aside in the appeal.
(5). The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has argued that this revision petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners did not file an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the persons who preferred appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority have not filed this revision petition. It is also contended that Collector has passed the order in exercise of powers conferred by Section 92 of the Act and in pursuance of government notification dated 19.5.93, Collector is empowered to set apart land for industrial purposes under Rule-7 of Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules-1955. Thus, there was no illegality in the order passed by Collector.
(6). I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.
(7). The learned counsel for the non-petitioner has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of revision filed by the petitioners. From perusal of Section 84 of the Act, it appears that the Board of Revenue is empowered to interfere in revision with the orders of the lower courts, if the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction hot vested in it or him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or acted in the exercise of its or his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is thus, clear that power of revision lies in the Board of Revenue and it is not necessary that a petition should be filed before Board of Revenue. Moreover, this matter pertains to the pasture land and according to Section 93 of the Act every villager has a right of grazing in the pasture land for their cattle. Hence the preliminary objection raised by the non- petitioner is not tenable and the Board of Revenue is empowered to entertain the revision petition against the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority or Collector, Sikar.
(8). Now it is to be seen whether the lower appellate court while passing the impugned judgment or Collector, Sikar while passing the order dated 1.5.95 exercised the; jurisdiction not vested in them or acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, Collector
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
