DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the order dt. 11.03.2013 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue, Ajmer upholding the proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956') for ejecting and removing the encroachment made by the petitioners on the land in question measuring 2 Bighas and 5 Biswas in Khasra No. 206 situated in Village -Gunjol, Tehsil -Nathdwara. The Tehsildar, Nathdwara, in the first instance vide order Annex. 1 dt. 27.08.2002, had held that the petitioners had encroached over the said land in question and the land in question was a 'Pasture Land' and the petitioner's father being a Government servant had fraudulently got entered the names of his sons, namely, Devendra Singh and Hukam Singh (petitioners herein) in the revenue record and had encroached over the land in question. The case of the petitioners under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1970') which provides for allotment of land to the trespassers, cannot be considered favourably in his case and on the other hand, for the misuse of powers being a Government servant, the petitioner deserved to be punished suitably.

(2.) THE said order dt. 27.08.2002 of the Tehsil, Nathdwara, was challenged by the petitioners by way of appeal before the learned District Collector, Rajsamand, which Revenue Appeal No. 26/2002 also came to be dismissed by the learned District Collector vide Annex. 2 order dt. 22.10.2002, who also held that the appellants being Government servant in the "Samvat Year" 2059 committing fraud in collusion with the revenue authorities, namely, the Patwari, got the names of his sons surreptitiously entered in the revenue record, therefore, such encroachment cannot be regularized invoking the Rule 20 aforesaid. The District Collector, however, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners held that the petitioners will not be sent to civil jail as held by the Tehsildar. The second appeal under Sec. 76 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, viz. Appeal No. 186/02, also came to be dismissed by the learned R.A.A., Udaipur vide the order dt. 18.11.2006 (Annex. 3). The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned R.A.A., Udaipur is quoted herein below for ready reference: - -

(3.) MR . Nikhil Dungawat, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the learned Board of Revenue was wrongly swayed by the fact and taking a wrong impression that the father of the petitioners, namely, Sh. Jai Singh Chouhan, was 'Patwari' himself and misusing his office, he got the land in question entered in his name and wanted to get it regularized under Rule 20 aforesaid, whereas the father of the present petitioners, Sh. Jai Singh Chouhan, was in fact a teacher and was never a 'Patwari'. In support of the above contentions, the petitioners have produced a copy of the order Annex. 6 dt. 02.07.1974 has been produced as Annex. 6 to the writ petition. By the aforesaid order Annex. 6, the father of the petitioners was appointed as teacher on 02.07.1974 and worked as such till 31.12.2009 when he retired as teacher, vide the averments made in para 10 of the writ petition. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Board of Revenue has wrongly held that the petitioners were the encroachee/s and their case for regularization of the disputed land could not be considered as per Rule 20 of the Rules of 1970.