SADBU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two matters the point in issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is identical. Not only this both these petitions arise from the common order of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The arguments in these two petitions though were heard on two different dates but for the reasons aforesaid these are being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE facts and grounds of the challenge to the impugned orders are taken from S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1066/2001.

(3.) I do not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the land was available for the allotment. Even where we proceed with this assumption or presumption or acceptance that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land but their possession thereon is only of a rank trespasser and as it is not being a legal possession the land in dispute for all the purposes be taken to be available for the allotment. Under the Rules of 1970, in fact after this allotment instead of entering into all these litigations and depriving of the possession to respondent No. 5 for all these years voluntarily the petitioners should have handed over the possession of this land to respondent No. 5. It is unfortunate that the citizens believe to act against the basic conception of rule of law, honesty believe to act and proceed with all the dishonesty and they may be correct to certain extent as rank trespasser are protected. The petitioners are rank trespasser on the land in dispute and I fail to see any jurisdiction in their approach that the authorities have to take an action for their eviction from the land in dispute. This is the land of the Government and the petitioners have enjoyed the fruits thereof for all these years but have not acquired any right, title or interest to continue in the possession thereof. It is a high time where the Government has to take realistic view in the matter so that this long innings for taking the possession of its own land from the trespassers may not be necessary and adopted. In this way if we go then this very purpose and object of the Rules, 1970 shall be frustrated. It is not unknown that on Government sawai chak land unscrupulous persons have made the encroachements. This land is allotted to poor persons like respondent No. 5, and he has not been given the real, effective and substantial relief and justice but this litigation comes to him as a gift from the Government as that what it is clear from this litigation. The officers of the Government to take all care and caution that this landless persons are given the land and not the litigation. If the lands are under the possession of trespasser a drastic action is to be taken and they are to be evicted therefrom and then the land is to be allotted to the landless persons so the real purpose and object underline in the Rules, 1970 is fulfilled. It is unfortunate that for the Government action what is said in the newspaper or media will be proved to be contrary if we go by the realities of the things. The Government officers may take and feel happy with this the statistical credits that thousands of bighas of land have been allotted to landless persons but if we go by the realities it is not the land but a litigation which has been allotted to this poor class of the persons. These rank trespassers are dragging the bonafide allottee of the land in the litigation and every allottee may not be in a position to resist the litigation and on one day he may surrender to their wishes and desires. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show how the findings recorded by the three authorities regarding the allotment of land has been made after making strict compliance of the Rules, 1970 suffers from any illegality or perversity. Both these petitions are frivolous and baseless and only an attempt on the part of the petitioners to abuse the process of the Court. The petitioners are undisputedly rank trespassers on the land in dispute and this Court is not this class of persons. It is a case where the Court in such matters are to come heavily against this class of persons so that the real justice be done to the landless persons. It is to be made clear to the officers of the Government that in the allotment of land to landless persons they have to first identify that class of the landless persons who are not having/possessing a single inch of land and they are to be preferred. It is a high time where the rank trespassers should not be given any benefit of Allotment Rules, 1970. Even if they are taken eligible for allotment though having made encroachment on Government land, first they have to ask to vacate it and that way the land is made available for the allotment. They can apply for the land and their claims may be placed for consideration of the Allotment Committee. In the matter of allotment of the land the Allotment Committee may legitimately decline to allot land to those persons who may be landless but would have taken the law in their hand or have not exhibited themselves to be law abiding citizens and have made trespass on Government land. The petitioners if we go by these petitions it is clear they have not vacated the land to make it available for giving possession thereof to respondent No. 5. From the report of the Commissioner their possession on the land in dispute is reported. Simplicitor dismissal of these petitions by this Court may not be final solution and a real justice to respondent No. 5 unless he gets the possession of the land in dispute forthwith. The petitioners as what they are exhibiting themselves in ordinary course will not hand over the possession of the land in dispute to respondent No. 5. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to see that no injustice is caused to a person who has been legally allotted the land under the Rules, 1970. This Court has also to take into consideration that the rank trespassers may not get any further premium whatsoever. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, to do complete and substantial justice to this landless person, respondent No. 5, the petitioners are person, respondent No. 5, the petitioners are directed to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to the Tehsildar concerned within a period of one months from the date of receipt the writ of this order. The Tehsildar concerned is directed to give the possession of this land to respondent No. 5 on receiving it from the petitioners. In case the petitioners do not comply with this direction of the Court, the Tehsildar concerned is to report the matter to the Court immediately. The compliance of this order is also to be reported by the petitioners to the Court. It is a case where rank trespassers have made attempt to abuse the process of the Court. Not only this the petitioners by filing these petitions have increased the workload of the Court which results in consuming its valuable and precious time. It is a fit case where the exemplary cost is to be awarded against the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- each as the cost of these petitions. They are directed to deposit this amount of the cost in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and the receipt of deposit thereof be produced on the record of these cases. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the petitioners of these petitions and the Tehsildar concerned forthwith by registered post A. D.