NARAIN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge vide order dated 2. 2. 99. The matter is listed for cancellation of stay application. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we have heard the appeal itself.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the present purposes are that allotment under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotments of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rules, 1970 [hereinafter called the Rules] has been made for the land in question in favour of one Roopa Ram respondent No. 5 who is an Ex-army man. THE present appellant Shanker Lal and Narain alongwith Sita Ram filed an application under Rule 14 (iv) of the Rule for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram to the Collector, Bhilwara. Actually on the ground that allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram is not proper and the applicants are in possession of the land prior to allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram and are entitled to be considered for regularisation as their possession is prior to consideration of application of Roopa Ram. This application was allowed by the Addl. Collector vide order dated 12. 8. 93 and the order of allotment was set aside. Against said order Roopa Ram preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Ajmer and impleaded State of Raj. , Narain, Shanker Lal and Sita Ram as respondents. THE Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of Roopa Ram on 28. 10. 96 and restored the allotment in favour of Rooma Ram. Aggrieved with that order Narain and Shanker Lal alone preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. An objection was raised on behalf of respondent Roopa Ram that the applicant has no right to prefer an appeal in proceedings under Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules. Upholding the preliminary objection the appeal of Narain and Shanker Lal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 23. 9. 97, against which they filed writ petition No. 2821/98 which has been dismissed by learned single Judge vide order under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) WE may clarify that the fact that an applicant is a party to proceedings, does not detract from the fact that such an application may also serve as information on the basis of which Collector can act suo moto, particularly in case where after lodging the application the applicant becomes disinterested and may not proceed in the matter. In such event Collector is always free to act suo moto on the basis of information contained in such application, if he considers the same to be credible to found action under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules.