Honble , M.—The above two appeals being of the similar nature filed by the same appellants pertaining to the same original land holding (Khasra No. 1310) are clubbed together for final disposal through a common judgment.

2. These are appeals under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") against the impugned common judgment dated 13.3.2003 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur in appeal No. 144/2002 and 160/2002.

3. Briefly stated facts are that respondents Rajaram and Babu Lal were allotted 0.50 hectare of land each in Khasra No. 1310 situated in village Mendi of Tehsil Gangapurcity, Distirct Sawai Madhopur on 16.5.1989 by the land allotment committee. Thereafter possession of the allotted land was given to the allottees Rajaram and Babu Lal respectively by the concerned revenue officials. Pattas of the allotted land were also issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gangapurcity. Aggrieved against these two allotment orders, appellants approached District Collector, Sawai Madhopur under rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1970), whereupon Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur vide his common decision dated 3.7.2002 cancelled the allotments of both the respondents-allottees. Aggrieved against the impugned decision dated 3.7.2002, the respondents - allottees filed appeals before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur, who by his common decision dated 3.3.2003 allowed the appeals, quashed the order of Additional Collector dated 3.7.2002 and upheld the allotments of respondents. Hence the instant appeals against the impugned decision of Revenue Appellate , Authority dated 13.3.2003.

4. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsels for the appellants and respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the respondents Raja Ram and Babu Lal were wrongfully allotted 0.50 hectare of land each in khasra No. 1310 on ]6.5.89. Ever since the allotments, respondents have never been in possession of the allotted land, which is in possession of the appellants who being members of the scheduled tribe should have been allotted the impugned land on priority basis. But the allotment committee did not consider the applications of the appellants for allotment of the disputed land and without giving any reason rejected the applications of the appellants and. allotted the disputed land to the respondents. It was necessary for the allottees to cultivate atleast 50% of the land in the first year of the allotment according to Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1970 but this condition of and as such Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur rightly cancelled the impugned allotments of the year 1989 vide his judgment dated 3.7.2002. Appellants being the members of scheduled tribe should have been given priority in allotment. It was further argued that the appellants were earlier in the year 1983 allotted 0.50 hectare of land in the same khasra No. 1310 which is a large chunk of land. The disputed allotted land is adjoining the earlier allotted land of the appellants, who being landless agriculturists should have been allotted the land given to respondents. There is site inspection report of Inspector Land Records (fxjnkoj) which shows that the. appellants are in possession of the disputed land. There is also dispute with regard to the demarcation of the allotted land and its consequent alternation (rjehe) of the map. Learned counsel for the appellants cited 2002 RRD 1 to state that allotment procured through misrepresentation and fraud should be cancelled. It was also argued that khatedari right of the allottee can be extinguished under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955"). Since the land has been in possession of the appellants, it was not available for the allotment and as such should not have been allotted. Learned Rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document