SANTDAS Vs. BADRIPRASAD

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 R.A.A. Bikaner passed in appeal No. 43/93 dated 6.2.97 arising out of the facts that it is alleged that in st. 2024 temporary cultivation lease was granted in relation to khasra No. 529 measuring 30 bighas in favour of the applicant. Subsequently during settlement this khasra number was converted to new khasra No. 57/3 area 27.5 bighas and khasra No. 75/537 area 2 bigha total 29 bigha. Subsequently the village transferred in colony area and khasra numbers were changed into murraba number in the form of chak 3 MKM murraba No. 135/35 killa No. 16, 24, 25 equivalent to 3 bigha murraba No. 185/43 kila No. 20, 21 equavalent to 2 bighas, murraba No. 185/44 kile No. 1, 9, 12, 19, 23 equivalent to 10 bigha, murraba No. 185/45 kila No. 1 23 equivalent to 4 bigha, murraba No. 185/46 kila No. 5, 10, 15 equivalent to 3 bigha total 22 bigha which is said to be in the cultivation of applicant. Later on applicant applied for permanent allotment, On the said application 8.16 bigha was allotted on 24.8.77 and rest of the land was cancelled. Again application was made for that it is alleged it is subjudice. It is also alleged that on 30.5.81 6 bigha was allotted to present non-petitioner. Against this order one appeal was preferred to the court of R.A.A. by the present applicant which was dismissed by the said authority on 6.2.99 on the ground that the appeal was not accompanied with certified copy of the order aggrieved. Hence the present revision.

(2.) . Counsel for the applicant argued that on the allotment order 30.5.81 this order was not signed by the alloting authority inspite of the best efforts the certified copy was not issued henceforth it was wrong on the part of the first appellate court to reject the appeal on this technical ground.

(3.) . On the contrary counsel appearing for the other side argued that main allotment order is distinct and order dated 30.5.1980 is only its execution and as per rules certified copy of the allotment orders should have been filed. In absence of that order appeal was rightly dismissed.