Honble Arvind, M.—This is a second appeal udner Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the order of R.A.A., Jaipur dated 25.4.2005.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that land 4 bighas 5 biswas of khasra No.92 of village Luniawas was recorded as sewai chak. On 11.6.1968, the Allotment Advisory Committee allotted this land to Gopal S/o Bhura, by caste jat, r/o Luniawas, whereas there is no person of the name of Gopal s/o Bhura jat in the village Luniawas. On the basis of this allotment order, mutation No.90 was attested and the land was mutated in the name of Gopal S/o Bhura Jat as ghair khatedar by the Gram Panchayat on 24.6.1969. By the mutation No. 167 dated 29.1.1981, this land was mutated in the name of Gopi s/o Bhura jat as khatedar. This mutation was attested after a lapse of 12 years. One Shri Sumer Singh, by caste Rajptu, R/o Luniawas made a complaint to Justice Beri Commission. Justice Beri Commission registered the complaint and having enquired into the matter recommended to the govt. that this allotment should be cancelled. The State Govt. made an appeal before learned addl. Collector-III titled as State vs. Gopal r/o Luniawas, Tehsil Phulera. In this appeal, it was a type mistake, by which appeal was made against Gopal S/o Kishanlal. In the decision, learned Addl. Collector ordered that the allotment is cancelled and the land may be recorded back as sewai chak. Against the order of learned Addl. Collector dated 1.8.2002, appeal was preferred to the R.A.A., Jaipur which was decided on 25.4.2005. This appeal was accepted by learned R.A.A. Aggrieved against this order of learned R.A.A. dated 25.4.2005, this appeal has been made before us.

3. The contention of the learned govt. Advocate on behalf of the appellant is that the order of learned R.A.A., Jaipur dated 25.4.2005 is against law and against the facts of the case. He argued that the allotment is ineffective from the date of allotment order because the allotment was Benami and was obtained through fraud. The Sarpanch at that period played a trick and he obtained the allotment in the name of Gopal by mentioning false name of father of Gopal. The Sarpanch wanted to garb the land by a Benami allotment. There was no person as Gopal S/o Bhura Jat in the village on the day of allotment i.e. 11.6.1968 and this allotment was benami and obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and concealment of facts. The Sarpanch, Kishanlal was member of the advisory committee and he misled the advisory committee and obtained this allotment order. On an appeal by the Tehsildar allotment was cancelled by learned Addl. Collector-III. He also argued that the order of learned R.A.A. is improper because he mentioned in the decision that proper parties were not made at the level of learned Addl. Collector. This conclusion of learned R.A.A. is not only erroneous but per-se illegal because there was nobody in the name of Gopal alias Gopi S/o Bhura Jat in the village and as such when the allotment was benami, it was not possible that a benami person could be made a party. The original allotment was made in the name of Gopal S/o Bhura Jat and there was no person at the time of allotment in the village in the name of Gopal S/o Bhura Jat. A trick was played subsequently and the allotment was conceived in the name of Gopi S/o Bhura. It is clear in this case that the allotment was obtained in the name of Gopal S/o Bhura Jat and later on with the collusion of the Up-Sarpanch, mutation was attested in the name of Gopi S/o Bhura Jat, whereas no allotment order was made in the name of Gopi S/o Bhura. It was also argued that the appeal presented before the R.A.A. was also benami because the appeal was presented by Gopal alias Gopi S/o Bhura Jat resident of village Luniawas. There is nobody in the village even today in the name of Gopal alias Gopi S/o Bhura. It is for this reason that even after a decision in the favour of Gopal alias Gopi when the application was presented in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document