GULAM HAIDER Vs. NARAINSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision petition filed under Rule 23(2) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Project Area) Rules 1975 against the judgment of Collector Bikaner dated 8.3.2000. Brief facts of this revision are that in chak 4 BJMD murraba No. 164/14 measuring 17 bigha was allotted to present non-petitioner on 18.10.75, Khatedari was also given to him in the year 1991. After i! present applicant No.l purchased it from the present non-petitioner through registered sale deed dated 17.12.91. Mutation of which was also sanctioned on 14.2.92. Yet Collector while passing the impugned judgment cancelled it. No notice was given to the present petitioner by the Collector while passing the impugned judgment. Hence the revision.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the applicant argued that present non-applicant No.l was allotted permanent murraba No. 164/14 measuring 17 bighas on 18.10.75 and khatedari was also given to him in the year 1991 and thereupon through registered sale deed dated 17.12.91 he sold this land the present application mutation of which was also sanctioned in follow up action as mutation No.71 dated 14.2.92. Under these circumstances it was incumbent upon the Collector to give him opportunity of being heard and notice of the same. Het he has passed order though this fact was brought to his knowledge by his vendor the present non-application No.l. In fact when in the year 1975 the allotment was made in favour of the non-applicant No.l he was bonafide agriculturist and the alleged allegation that he was holding world food depot was perse wrong and illegal because he was another Narainsingh his father's name was also different. Even otherwise report of Tehsildar shows that depot was only in the year 1978-79 but the present allotment was made in the year 1975. Another allegation which was levied against non-petitioner No. 1 that he was student in the year 1976-77 that is equally fallen on the ground because allotment was made in the year 1975 and if subsequent to allotment somebody wants to join some school that cannot be deemed to be disqualification for the allotment.

(3.) Oh the contrary non-applicant No.l supported the contention of counsel for the applicant. Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment but urged that reasonable opportunity should be given to the present applicant. However he also submits that instead of remanding the case the matter can be decided at this level.