Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 2434
[Citation : RLW 2007(1) RJ 231]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Mahesh Dan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Singh, J.)
HON'BLE DALIP SINGH, J.
Mahesh Dan Singh and Others
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Others
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6677 of 2003, decided on 12th October, 2006
Subject
Land Allotment - Allotment of Land to Ex-Servicemen
Act Referred
Headnote
Petition allowed.
The petitioners need not proceed against the respondents by means of any proceedings under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It is the duty of the revenue authorities that in pursuance of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners on 16.07.1973 of the unoccupied land, to handover the possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners. (Para 23)
There was no need for any further proceedings to be taken in the matter either under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 or under Rule 14(4) as the allotment dated 16.07.1973 in favour of the petitioners had already been found to be valid and subsequent allotments made in the year 1977 to the respondents cannot stand as the land was not available for allotment since the same already stood allotted to the petitioners on 16.07.1973. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The stay application also stands disposed of. (Para 24)
.
Mahesh Dan Singh, for Petitioner No.1 in person;
B.K.Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate ;
K.K.Mehrishi, Senior Counsel assisted by Timan Singh, for Respondents
2. As per the case of the petitioners, the possession of the land was handed over to the petitioners on 18.07.1973. This possession was of course disputed by the respondents. On 26.07.1973 entries were made in the revenue record and the mutation in favour of the petitioners were also open. The case of the petitioners is that between the year 1973 to 1977 the petitioners have even cultivated the land after having come into possession after allotment.
3. An application under Rule 14 sub-rule (4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rules, 1970 was moved by the respondents for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners and vide judgment dated 30.12.1974 the said allotment was canceled by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur. The petitioners in the meanwhile, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and on 18.01.1975 an interim order of stay was granted in favour of the petitioners by the Revenue Appellate Authority in the appeal filed against the judgment dated 30.12.1974. In spite of the aforesaid interim order passed in favour of the allottees, the petitioners, on 12.03.1976, the Tehsildar Lalsot, canceled the mutations made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land allotted to them. While the appeal was pending before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and even the interim order of stay dated 18.01.1975 was in operation, on 26.10.1977, the land in dispute came to be allotted in favour of the respondents. This fact, as per the case of the petitioners, was not in the knowledge of the petitioners as the allotment was made without giving notice to the petitioners. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority after hearing the appeal, vide judgment dated 31.05.1989, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 30.12.1974 and set aside the judgment dated 30.12.1974 and restored the allotment made in favour of the petitioners as the said order of allotment dated 16.07.1973 was found to be valid and in accordance with law.
4. It is not in dispute that after the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 31.05.1989, the respondents did not challenge in any Forum the said judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority passed in the appeal and restoring the order of allotment dated 16.07.1973 in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the judgment dated 31.05.1989 attained finality and the order of allotment dated 16.07.1973 was not in question before any Forum and the petitioners were entitled to be placed in the same position which prevailed prior to the judgment of the Additional Collector dated 30.12.1974.
5. The petitioners on being advised thereafter approached the revenue authorities for the possession of the land which had in the meantime allotted in favour of the respondents but on one pretext or the other the revenue authorities did not hand over the possession to the petitioners. As no action was taken by the revenue authorities for handing over the possession to the petitioners, the petitioners on being so advised filed an application for cancellation of allotment of land made in favour of the respondents by moving an application under the Rules of 1970. The aforesaid application remained pending for a considerable period of time and as such the petitioners approached this court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2533/1996 which was decided with the direction to the Collector, Dausa to decide the application filed by the petitioners within three months. The Collector, Dausa vide his judgment dated 14.05.1998 decid
