JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dtd. 17/1/2020 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, 'the BoR') dismissing the Appeal/LR/1753/2016 preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dtd. 29/10/2015 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in Appeal No.30/2012/75 LR Act whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgment dtd. 29/3/2003 passed by the Additional Collector (VI), Jaipur cancelling allotment of the land in question in their favour, was allowed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that predecessor in interest of the respondents, Shri Rudmal S/of Sh. Kanaram, was allotted 15 bighas of land out of khasra no.5 Village Mothu Ka Bas, Tehsil Amber on 9/9/1958. Initially, gair khatedari rights were conferred which, with the passage of time, were converted into khatedari rights. The District Collector, Jaipur vide its order dtd. 4/9/1996, converted 7 bighas 10 biswa out of the aforesaid land for industrial purpose. The allotment was cancelled by the Additional Collector (VI), Jaipur vide its order dtd. 29/3/2003 on the premise that land allotted for agriculture purpose was not used so within the stipulated time. An appeal preferred by the respondents thereagainst was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dtd. 29/10/2015 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the BoR which has dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dtd. 17/1/2020, impugned herein.

(3.) Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the BoR has failed to appreciate that allotment in favour of the predecessor in interest of the respondents was cancelled as he failed to cultivate the land, the purpose for which it was allotted to him, within the stipulated period. Drawing attention of this Court towards the Rule 14(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purpose) Rules, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1970'), he submitted that the allottee never applied for extension of time and hence, no fault could have been found with the order cancelling allotment. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.