NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four writ petitions, particulars whereof have been given in the Schedule annexed hereto, raise identical questions of law and facts, and hence, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. As illustrative of facts of all the cases, we may briefly narrate the facts of the D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1328/89 (Narain v. State of Rajasthan and others).

(2.) Under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules of 1970') read with provisions of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Hold-ings Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules of 1973'), the Allotting Authority (S.D.O., Begun) proceeded to make allotment of excess ceiling land in favour of the petitioner. A meeting was fixed for this purpose on 3-6-1981, at which besides the S.D.O., two members of the Advisory Committee namely Tehsildar, Begun and Sarpanch, Avalheda were also present. Since three members of the Advisory Committee were not present and the quorum was incomplete, the meeting was adjourned to 3 p.m. the same day. At the adjourned meeting, again the Allotting Au-thority and two members of the Advisory Committee were present. The Allotting Au-thority considered that the quorum was complete and hence by Annexure-1 he pro-ceeded to make the allotment in question. This allotment was challenged by respondent No. 3, Devi Lal by filing an application before Collector, Chittorgarh. This application was accepted by the Collector, Chittorgarh vide order Annexure-2 dated 13-9-1983. One of the grounds which prevailed with the Col-lector was that the quorum of the Advisory Committee was not complete inasmuch as at the adjourned meeting only two members of the Advisory Committee were present. Some other objections were also taken before him. But he made a vague and generalised obser-vation that the procedure and the Rules with regard to allotment had not been complied with. He however did not record any specific finding about the alleged contravention of such procedure or Rules. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur Camp, Chittorgarh, which was dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority agreed with the Collector that the quorum was not complete. The petitioner took the matter to the Board of Revenue, but the learned Member of the Board also concurred with the Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority that the quorum was not complete. He further said that the members of the Advisory Committee did not have any notice of the adjourned meeting held on the same day. He, therefore, affirmed the orders passed by the lower Courts.

(3.) In this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and the Re-venue Board had completely gone wrong in understanding the provisions regarding quorum of the meeting. He submits that once the meeting of the Advisory Committee had been adjourned, neither fresh notice was necessary to the members present nor any notice was necessary to the members of the Advisory Committee, who had not attended the meeting. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders of learned Collector, learn-ed Revenue Appellate Authority and the learned Member, Board of Revenue deserve to be quashed.