Honble BHANDARI, J.—This appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17/01/2007, decision rendered by the Board of Revenue dated 30/07/1990 , as well as the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 12/09/1983. The appellant further prayed for restoration of the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated 5/11/1981. (2). The facts giving rise to the controversy are that the appellant – petitioner preferred a suit under Sections 88, 188 an 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955) before the Assistant Collector, Nohar. The appellant had come out with a case that land of old Khasra No.346 was in continued possession of the appellants father since before Samvat 1990 and, in Samvat 2005, the appellant was separated from his father and the land was given to him. Since Samvat 2005, the appellant claimed to be in continuous peaceful and unobstructed possession of the land. In para 2 of the plaint, the appellant sated that he was eligible for allotment of said land as per Bhakhra Colonization Land Settlement and Allotment Rules, 1955 (in short, the Rules of 1955).The appellant submitted that in pursuant to the Rules of 1955, he had submitted an application for allotment of land as he was not only adult, having independent family, but was otherwise having no other land. It was alleged that due to the political pressure, the land was allotted to non-appellants No. 1 and 2, while appellant continued to be in possession. According to the appellant, allotment of the land to non-appellants No. 1 and 2 was not only illegal being contrary to the Rules of 1955, but was in ignorance of the rights of the appellant. The appellant further submitted that various criminal and other proceedings were initiated by the parties, but therein also, possession of the appellant was upheld. Despite that, non-appellants No. 1 and 2 tried to dispossess the appellant from the land in reference. Thus, the appellant was left with no option but to file a suit before the Court of the Assistant Collector. The suit filed by the appellant was contested by the non-appellants No. 1 and 2. It was submitted that the appellant was not entitled for allotment of land under the Rules of 1955 and otherwise also, the application submitted by the appellant for allotment of land to him was considered and finally decided by the Additional Commissioner, Bikaner Division vide his order dated 23.1.1961, whereby the appellants appeal was dismissed. The non- appellants further submitted that the allotment of land was not influenced by any political pressure, but the same was done on its merit. It was submitted that the non-appellant belongs to reserve caste and thereby, considering their application, the Revenue Authorities took a decision to allot land in reference to non-appellants No. 1 and 2. It was the case of the non- appellants that after the decision of the Additional Commissioner dated 23.1.1961, the appellant cannot seek allotment of land indirectly, which otherwise he could not secure directly. Thus, non-appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3). The Assistant Collector, vide his judgment dated 5/11/1981, decided the suit in favour of the appellant, holding that the plaintiff was entitled for allotment, considering the fact that in Girdawari of Samvat 2007 to 2012 also name of Rampratap was entered. It was further considered by the Assistant Collector that in Girdawari of Samvat 2009 to 2012, the land was being cultivated by Rampratap, hence according to the Court of the Assistant Collector, the land was in possession of Rampratap thereby application for allotment so rejected, was held to be illegal. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, non-appellants preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, where they succeeded. Being aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, appellant preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document