SOHAN SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and three other persons applied for allotment of land bearing square number 195/47 and 195/37 in Chak DOBB, that was notified for allotment under Rule 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1975"). On 14.2.1990 the competent authority rejected the application submitted by three other applicants and an order of allotment was made in favour of the appellant. On receiving some complaints about forming a syndicate to have allotment of the land on throw away price, an inquiry was conducted and as per its findings the order of allotment dated 14.2.1990 was cancelled. A revision petition preferred by the appellant before the Board of Revenue came to be rejected on 20.9.1994. A petition for writ preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the order passed by the Board of Revenue was also rejected on 6.3.2006. The order passed by learned Single Judge also came to be affirmed by Division Bench in DBCivil Special Appeal No.832/2007 on 4.10.2007. The land in question then was allotted to Om Prakash Jat and Smt. Kamla Devi on reserved price vide order dated 23.10.2008, however, the allotment made under the order aforesaid was cancelled and the same was kept open for sale by way of open auction. The order of cancellation was also subject matter of litigation, but ultimately that acquired finality under the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan with a direction for allotment of land in question by obtaining applications from desirous persons within the period prescribed. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue the petitioner preferred a petition for writ with assertion that the Board could not have directed for taking the fresh application. It is submitted that as per Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 the auction is required to be kept confined among the persons who applied earlier. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 9.11.2011 dismissed the writ petition, hence this special appeal is before us.

(2.) The only argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is that as per Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 no order could have been passed inviting fresh applications and the entire process of sale by way of auction should have been kept confined to the persons who applied earlier for allotment of land.

(3.) We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled earlier only on the count that a conspiracy was hatched between all the applicants to defraud the revenue and to have allotment of land on throw away prices. The cancellation has acquired finality upto the Division Bench of this Court. If the argument advanced by learned counsel is accepted, then that shall amount to keep the entire process of sale by way of auction within the ambit of conspirators only. After cancellation of the allotment based on a conspiracy, the only course available is to have fresh applications for allotment of land by way of auction.