HAR PRASAD JATAV Vs. ANIL KUMAR DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 Harprasad (since dead) was the owner of 0.61 hectares of land out of total 2.03 hectares of land of survey numbers 226, 254, and 227. The aforesaid land was sold by Harprasad to one Vasudev by a registered sale deed dtd. 2/8/2000. Similarly, half share in survey number 123 situated in village Piprauli, i.e. 0.418 hectare, was sold by Harprasad to Ramsanehi by registered sale deed dtd. 7/8/1991 and after the aforesaid land was sold by Harprasad, he became a landless person. The State Government by circular dtd. 2/3/2002 decided to allot Charnoi land to landless persons of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and accordingly, by order dtd. 27/5/2002 passed by Tahsildar Gohad in Case No. 19/2001-02/v -19, 1.04 hectares of land forming part of Khasra number 1568 situated in village Piprauli was allotted to the petitioner. One Hargovind S/o Dhansu preferred an appeal before SDO Gohad, District Bhind, which was registered as Case No. 33/2002-03/Appeal and was dismissed by order dtd. 24/12/2003, and the allotment of land in favour of Harprasad was upheld on the ground that Hargovind was Brahmin by caste, whereas as per circular dtd. 2/3/2002 Charnoi land was to be allotted to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The aforesaid order attained finality and was never challenged. It is submitted that although the petitioners were under an impression that the dispute has suffered a decent burial, but one Anil Kumar Dubey preferred an appeal against the order of allotment dtd. 27/5/2002. By order dtd. 9/4/2012 passed in Case No. 53/11 -12/v0ek0, SDO (Revenue), District Bhind allowed the appeal and set aside the allotment order passed in favour of petitioner. The revision filed by petitioners against the order dtd. 9/4/2012 was dismissed by Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, by order dtd. 9/10/2012 in Case No. 52/2011 -12/revision.

(3.) Challenging the orders passed by the Revenue courts, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that once the appeal preferred by Hargovind was already rejected and the order of allotment of land in favour of petitioners was already approved, then without challenging the said order, the appeal filed by Anil Kumar Dubey was not maintainable and, thus, it is claimed that the revenue Authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction.