Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Bachna Ram S/o Shri Multana Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar – Respondent
ORDER :
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioners under Rule 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Project) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1975’) was rejected.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the private respondents were having a khatedari land in Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner. The land of the private respondents was acquired by the State Government and in view of the acquisition of the land, vide allotment order dated 18.05.2001, the private respondents were allotted a land in Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner on an application preferred by them before the Additional Commissioner, Colonization, IGNP, Chhattargarh, Bikaner.
4. The petitioners, who are the residents of Bajju, have assailed the allotment of the land to the private respondents by way of filing an application under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 before the Additional Comm
The court upheld the validity of land allotment under the Rajasthan Colonization Rules, confirming the authority of the Additional Commissioner to reject cancellation applications based on existing n....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of the Rajasthan Colonization Rules, 1975, particularly regarding the definition of 'landless person'....
The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, finding no violations of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules and affirming the finality of prior allotments.
Fraud vitiates all acts; a transferee cannot assert rights over a void allotment, and failure to provide notice does not confer legitimacy on such a transaction.
The court established that long-standing land allotments should not be canceled without substantial justification, emphasizing the need for fair treatment of agriculturalists.
The main legal point established is that the power to cancel land allotment must be exercised within a reasonable time, and khatedari rights cannot be withdrawn after their conferment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
