JAI NARAIN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer dated October 6, 1978, setting aside the allotment of a piece of land from Khasra No. 47 in village Bhadal, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, made earlier in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The circumstances, which have given rise to this writ petition, may he briefly stated: It is undisputed that the land comprised in Khasra No. 47 in village Bhadal was recorded as "Gair Mumkin Talai", in the revenue records even at the time when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force and also when the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 came into force. At some stage subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake, is said to have converted the land in dispute from "Gair Mum-kin" to "Barani" and, thereafter, the Tehsil Advisory Committee allotted a piece of land, out of the aforesaid Khasra No. 47, to the petitioner. The allotment made in favour of the petitioner was challenged by means of a revision petition before the State Government, which was transferred to the Collector, Jaipur for disposal. The Collector, by his order dated July 9, 1976, held that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was invalid and void as the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to convert "Gair Mumkin Talai" into cultivable 'Barani' land. The Collector, therefore, held that the land could not have been validly allotted to the petitioner and the allotment was consequently cancelled. The order passed by the Collector was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated November 30, 1976.

(3.) The Board of Revenue also came to the same conclusion and relying upon a decision of the larger bench of the Board of Revenue in Durga Prasad v. Panna Lal, 1977 RRD 673, held that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake, acted entirely without jurisdiction in converting the land from "Gair Mum-kin Talai" to 'Barani' and as such the entire proceedings relating to allotment of land were ab initio void. The Board of Revenue held that the land in dispute, comprised in Khasra No. 47, still continued to be 'Gair Mumkin Talai' and was not available for allotment and that the allotment of a portion thereof in favour of the petitioner was, therefore, invalid and void. The Board also found certain irregularities and illegalities in the method of allotment employed by the Land Allotment Advisory Committee at the time of making allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner.