GANPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have approached this Court through this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation for assailing the allotment order dtd. 23/5/2003 issued by the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate allotting 4 Bighas land to 'Rajkiya Shiksha Karmi Vidyalaya' for establishing a school in the Village Beroo. The grievance, which has been raised by the petitioners, is based on the foundation that allotment has been made from land categorized as 'Gair Mumkin Aagor' (catchment area) of the pond of Village Beroo and as such, the allotment of the land in question is dehors to the rules and contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 435. Though the allotment was made in the year 2003, but suddenly, after 17 years, the Tehsildar has passed an order dtd. 16/7/2020 for demarcating the land in question whereupon, the instant writ petition came to be filed.

(2.) While arguing the matter on 10/2/2021, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that though the order of allotment had been cancelled long back but despite that, the revenue authorities were proceeding for making the demarcation of the land in question. Thereupon, this Court directed the learned AAG to file affidavit of the SDM concerned to explain as to how proceedings of demarcation have been initaited. In compliance of order dtd. 10/2/2021, an additional affidavit of the SDO, Jodhpur was filed wherein, it is asserted that villagers named Pep Singh and others, filed a revenue appeal against the order dtd. 23/5/2003 and the consequent Mutation Entry No.908 and the matter was remanded to the original authority to hear all the parties, makes physical verification of the land in question and to pass a fresh order thereafter. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the order dtd. 20/5/2005 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur has been challenged by the Gram Panchayat Beroo by filing a Revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer wherein, an interim order was passed on 31/5/2005 staying the effect and operation of the order dtd. 20/5/2005 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The affidavit also recites that Pep Singh and others also filed an application under Sec. 81 of the Land Revenue Act read with Sec. 151 CPC before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by order dtd. 26/2/2007. It is also stated that a Civil Suit for permanent injunction and declaration was also preferred by Pep Singh and others in relation to the same land and it has also been dismissed by the competent Civil Court by judgment dtd. 3/10/2019. An appeal was also filed by Pep Singh and Takhat Singh against the order whereby the Tehsildar directed demarcation of the land in question and the said appeal has been disposed of by the Revenue Appellate Authority by order dtd. 21/12/2020 directing the respondents to restrain from raising any kind of construction on the land in question and to maitnain status quo thereupon. The said order has also been challenged by the Principal of the School by filing a Revision No.271/2021 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer wherein, the direction to maintain status quo has been reiterated and the trial court has been ordered to decide the application under Sec. 212 of the Land Revenue Act within two months. Most of these very facts are reiterated in the reply of the respondents. In the formal reply filed on behalf of the revenue authorities, it has been mentioned that physical verifcation of the land falling in Khasra No.854/1 and 854/2 was made by the revenue officials and it has been found that there is/are no adjoining disputed chunk of land and thus, the so called 'Aagor' land is not useful for collection/ flow of water. On these grounds, the prayers made in the writ petition have been controverted.

(3.) Shri Anil Vyas, Advocate representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that land recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Aagor' is not available for allotment under the statutes. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments: