RAM KISHAN AND ANR. Vs. JAGANNATH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a third round of litigation where the subject land was allotted to a landless person way back in August, 1962 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (Allotment Rules 1970); and for its cancellation application which came to be filed at the behest of petitioner U/r 14(4) of Allotment Rules, 1970 on 15.07.1988 after almost 26 years of its allotment however the same was dismissed vide judgment dt. 04.01.1997 (Ann. 5) which was reversed by Revenue Appellate Authority after the matter came in appeal before the Board of Revenue, the allotment of land made in favour of respondents (defendants) was examined in detail and it was recorded that on two occasions earlier, petitioner at one stage challenged mutation opened in favour of respondents but that finally came to be rejected by revenue authorities; and thereafter fresh proceedings were initiated seeking declaration of khatedari rights and the matter travelled before this Court and writ petition was finally rejected and thereafter the petitioners submitted application U/r 14(4) of Allotment Rules, 1970 seeking cancellation of allotment made in favour of respondents way back on 13.08.1962 and ultimately the Board of Revenue restored allotment vide judgment dl. 15.11.2011 (Ann. 7). Hence instant petition. It has come on record and taken note of by revenue authorities that present petitioners indisputably are holding 65 bighas & 13 biswas of Irrigated agricultural land and they are trespasser over the subject land in question. As regards respondents (defendants), they were considered to be landless persons being members of Scheduled Caste, which was based on the material on record; and the finding has been recorded regarding the defendants being landless persons under Allotment Rules, 1970 and were eligible for allotment as was rightly made by revenue authorities in August, 1962.

(2.) MAIN thrust of counsel for petitioner is that the defendant -allottees who claimed to be landless person was factually incorrect and he was (they were) holding sufficient land and that apart, other conditions precedent regarding allotment of land under Rules, 1970 were also not fulfilled by allottee respondents and this has been recorded by revenue appellate authority in its orders regarding the alleged misrepresentation made on the part of the allottees and as regards noncompliance of certain conditions to be complied with required to retain the allotment under Rules, 1970.

(3.) THE submissions made by Counsel for the petitioners are wholly without substance for the reason that after two separate rounds of litigation initiated at the behest of present petitioner and finally baying lost either in the proceedings initiated against mutation entries made in favour of defendants (respondents herein) or in the suit seeking declaration of khatedari rights, present proceeding initiated is the third round of litigation that too after 26 years by filing application under Rule 14(4) of Allotment Rules, 1970 on 15.07.1988 seeking cancellation of allotment made way back in August, 1962 where the SDO vide order dt. 04.01.1997 recorded finding that allotment impugned was rightly made taking note of conditions precedent required under Rules, 1970 and the petitioner was considered to be trespasser and admittedly the petitioners were not entitled to seek allotment under Rules, 1970; rather were not within their rights to question at least allotment to landless persons made by competent authority under Allotment Rules, 1970. Indisputable, the petitioners are holding 65 bighas & 13 biswas of land as is evident from the finding recorded by revenue authorities, which has not been disputed by the petitioners even before this Court. The Board of Revenue in its order impugned, taking note of earlier proceedings initiated by petitioners ultimately, recorded a finding of fact that respondents (defendants) were landless persons and who have been rightly allotted the subject land under Allotment Rules, 1970 in Aug., 1962; that being so, this Court finds no manifest error being committed by the revenue authorities in finally restoring the allotment impugned, which may call for Interference U/Art. 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, writ petition falls and is hereby dismissed. No costs.