HARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.11.2001 as passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2237/2001 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner -appellant against the order dated 12.04.2001 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' / 'the Board of Revenue') dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.02.1996 as passed by the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar whereby the learned Additional Collector, while declining the application for regularisation moved by the petitioner under Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 ('the Act of 1954'), proceeded to order resumption of the land in question in the State for the alleged transfer being in violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1 955'/'the Tenancy Act').

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that on 01.12.1962, one Purkha Ram son of Chaina Ram, member of a Scheduled Caste, was allotted 12 bighas and 10 biswas of agriculture land as comprised in Murraba No. 34 at Chak 20 GB Tehsil Vijaynagar. The said allottee, even before completion of 7 years of allotment and without obtaining any permission from the concerned Collector, purportedly alienated the allotted land in favour of one Karnial Singh son of Sadhu Singh, a non -Scheduled Caste person, by the sale deed dated 14.06.1967. The petitioner -appellant Harjeet Singh allegedly purchased the land in question from the said Shri Karnail Singh under the sale deed dated 23.01.1973.

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order dated 29.12.1992 as passed by the RAA, the Additional Collector (Administration), Sriganganagar considered the matter in the impugned order dated 28.02.1996 (Annex.7) and observed that even before the order of the RAA, the petitioner had proposed to deposit the compounding fees. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner -appellant that with compounding fees having been deposited and the matter under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 having been decided, the land be regularised in his favour. The learned Additional Collector, however, declined the prayer so made with the observation that the sale from a member of Scheduled Caste to a non -Scheduled Caste person was directly hit by Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and was void ab -initio conferring no right on the purchaser. The learned Additional Collector was of the view that no case for regularisation was made out and even the disposal of the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 was not of any effect on invalidity of the transfer. While finding the case not fit for regularisation, the learned Additional Collector ordered the land to be resumed in favour of the Government.