Honble ARVIND, M.—This is an appeal under section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 26.3.2003 passed by learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk in appeal No. 16/2000.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the land of khasra No. 269 area 1 bigha 13 biswas and khasra No. 676 area 2 bighas 1 biswa total area 3 bighas 14 biswas was allotted on 27.10.1977 to late Shri Raghuveer Singh. Shri Raghuveer Singh sold that land through registered sale deed dated 16.3.1979 to appellant No. 4, within a period which was of less than two years, i.e., on 16.3.1979. The State Government moved an application before Collector, Tonk praying that the allottee violated the condition of allotment. This allotment was cancelled by learned Distt. Collector, Tonk by his order dated 25.7.2000. Against this order of cancellation of allotment, an appeal was preferred to learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority; Tonk who by his order dated 25.7.2000. Against this order of cancellation of allotment, an appeal was preferred to learned Settlement Officer-Cum-Revenue Appellate Authority; Tonk who by his order dated 26.3.2003 upheld the cancellation of allotment and rejected the appeal of the appellants. Aggrieved against these impugned orders of learned Distt. Collector, Tonk and learned Settlement Officer-cum -Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk this is a second appeal before this Bench.

3. Arguing in support of the appeal, the contention of learned advocate on behalf of the appellants is that it is agreed that the land was sold to appellant No. 4 but khatedari rights were given to Raghuveer Singh before 4.2.1983. He also argued that application under Section 14(4) was presented after 13 years of getting khatedari rights by Shri Raghuveer Singh. He also argued that allotment cannot be cancelled after such a belated time. He also argued that the order of learned Distt. Collector is illegal and he was not competent to cancel this allotment. He also argued that learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority also failed to appreciate the facts and merits of the case and he has wrongly upheld the order of learned Distt. Collector. Hence, both the impugned orders may be quashed and the allotment made in favour of Raghuveer Singh may be restored so that land sold to Shyochand may not be disturbed.

4. Arguing on behalf of the State Government, the contention of the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate is that as a policy of the Government the land is allotted to bona fide agriculturists for cultivation and the basis is that only landless bona fide agriculturist can claim the allotment under the Allotment Rules, 1970. In this case the allottee sold the land immediately after the allotment. Land was sold within 2 years; hence getting khatedari rights by the allottee after his selling of the land is a baseless claim for getting his allotment restored because once the land was sold by the allottee on 16.3.1979 to appellant No. 4 Shyochand it was very improper on his part to have claimed khatedari rights which he claims to have got before 4.2.1983. It is a case of nexus of concerned employees/officers and the allottee because he got allotment not for bona fide agricultural purpose but to convert this allotment into a business because selling the land immediately after allotment is not in anyway justified. It clearly suggests that he misrepresented his case under the claim of getting the land allotted for the purpose of agriculture but instead of utilising the land for the purpose of cultivation by himself he sold it out to a third person. Nothing has been brought on the record before both the authorities below that any permission was sought for selling the land. Land was sold even when the allottee was a gair-khatedar. There is contradiction in the appeal regarding facts because on the one hand the appellants are claiming that they were khatedars upto 1983 and on the other hand it is an admitte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document