SINGHAL, Member – Both these revision petitions have been filed under Rule 23(2) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Rules of 1975) against the order of Colonisation Commissioner dated 29.11.97, by which he has cancelled the allotments made under Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 in favour of the appellants on 21.7.93 on an application filed by Dy. Colonisation Commissioner and Officer Incharge (Vigilance), Bikaner. Since a common question of law and fact is involved in these petitions, therefore, both are being disposed of by a common order.

(2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land in Chak No. 28 SLD Muraba No. 128/39 area 25 bighas and 128/31 area 15 bighas and in Chak No. 32 SLD Muraba No. 147/29 area 19 bighas and 147/28 area 23 bighas were notified for sale by special allotment under Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975. For the allotment of Chak No. 28 SLD, the applicant Sadik and two applicants namely Om Prakash S/o Sitaram and Narpat Singh S/o Govind Singh Rajput and of Chak No. 32 SLD, the applicant Smt. Lala and four other applicants namely Nanu Ram, Bhura Ram, Balvinder Singh and Lalchand applied for the allotment. The Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner made allotment of chak No. 28 SLD measuring 40 bighas to the applicant Sadik and of chak No. 32 SLD measuring 42 bighas to the applicant Mst. Lal on 21.7.93 on priority basis as envisaged in Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1975. The Dy. Commissioner Colonisation and Officer Incharge (Vigilance), Bikaner filed two separate applicants before the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner stating that both the applicants are not eligible for allotment under Rule 7(1) on the priority basis, because the applicant Sadik have already got allotted 75 bighas BARANI land in his name and the applicant Mst. Lala has already got 75 bighas BARANI land in her husbands name. Therefore, the allotment made under Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 in their favour are not in accordance with the rules and liable to be cancelled. The learned lower court after issuing notice to the applicants and after providing an opportunity of being heard passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by this, the applicants have filed these revision petitions.

(3). I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the record and also perused the impugned order.

(4). The Addl. Govt. Advocate has preliminary objected that the revision petitions filed by the applicants are time barred. Therefore, these may be dismissed on this legal issue.

(5). I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. It is not disputed that under Rule 23(2) of the Rules of 1975 the limitation for filing revision in the Board of Revenue against the order of Colonisation Commissioner is sixty days. The applicants have filed these revision petition on 17.3.98. The impugned order has been passed on 29.11.97, whereas the application for obtaining copy of the order has been filed on 24.1.98. The copy of the order was ready on 5.2.98 but it has been received on 28.2.98, even if, date for receiving the copy is taken for granted then also the revisions have been filed by a delay of thirteen days for which no explanation has been given by the applicants. No application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay. Therefore, these revision petitions are clearly time barred.

(6). So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is not disputed that the Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner had made the allotments in favour of the applicants keeping in mind Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1975 in which allotments are made on priority basis. In this connection Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 also speaks that such lands as may be notified in this behalf by the State Government in official gazette to be sold by special allotment and should be allotted to the persons who are e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document