PRAMOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) FOR the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to issue formal notice to the respondents.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the averments made in the petition, we are left unpersuaded by the challenge, as laid in the present form. Not only, admittedly, the land involved had been allotted in favour of respondent No. 6 far back in the year 1965, following which, his name was entered in the related revenue records, as is evident from Annexure -2 to the writ petition, in absence of any convincing material available even to assume that such allotment had been illegal, we are even not prima facie satisfied on this imputation. Not only, the entry made in favour of respondent in the relevant revenue records carries with it an assumption of validity, rebuttable though, to reiterate, in absence of even any prima facie proof of violation of any rule or procedure, the indictment of the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 6 as illegal, cannot be sustained in the summary manner, as desired. Apart from the huge time lag in between, admittedly, the respondent No. 6 had meanwhile been conferred with khatedari rights in the land and he has further sold the same in favour of respondent No. 7 by a sale deed as far as back on 14.5.2010. The petition does not disclose any material to hold the sale transaction to be invalid as well. The petitioner has not disclosed either as to when he had come to learn of all the developments narrated in his petition. The legal notice admittedly is dated 16.6.2014. No basis in support of the imputation of illegality, as alleged, has been disclosed. Noticeably, the Education Department of the State is not before this Court alleging manipulations and foul play in the matter of allotment of its land in favour of respondent No. 6. The petitioner except stating that he is a resident of a place situated in the vicinity of the land in question has not disclosed further particulars of his to attach any extra weightage to his allegations of illegality in the matter of allotment of the land involved in favour of respondent No. 6 and invalidity of the sale made by him in favour of respondent No. 7. On the other hand, the entries in the relevant revenue records in favour of respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 7 vis -à -vis the said land prima facie demonstrates the legality of the process, as involved, culminating in the registration of their names in the concerned records of rights.