PEER MOHAMAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that father of the petitioners was a "landless person", hence, considering the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (Allotment of Land for Agriculture purposes) Rules, 1957, the allotment of land bearing Khasra No. 1098/2 measuring, 7 Bigha and land bearing Khasra No. 110/3301 measuring, 7 Bigha and 17 Biswa was made in his favour, way back in the year 1964 and 1961 respectively. Counsel submits that after a lapse of 40 years, the above allotments were cancelled by the Court of Additional Collector- II, Jaipur vide order dtd. 30/1/2001 on the basis of recommendations made by the "Beri Commission" constituted by the State Government. Counsel submits that no notice was given by the Commission to the petitioners and an ex parte recommendations were made for cancellation of the allotment. Counsel submits that against the impugned order dtd. 30/1/2001, the petitioners submitted an appeal before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (for short, 'RAA') wherein an order was passed and the allotment dtd. 12/6/1964 with regard to the land bearing Khasra No. 1098/2 measuring 7 Bigha was restored and rest of the order of cancellation was retained as it is vide impugned order dtd. 28/12/2005. Counsel submits that aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order, the petitioners submitted an appeal under Sec. 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956') before the Board of Revenue (for short, 'the Board') and the Board has gone a step ahead and suo motu has cancelled the allotment which was made in favour of the petitioners' father with regard to land bearing Khasra Nos. 1098/2 measuring 7 Biswa vide order dtd. 11/10/2011. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order passed by the Board was foreign to the procedure because no appeal was submitted by the State against the judgment dtd. 28/12/2005 passed by the RAA. Counsel further submits that allotment made in favour of father of the petitioners cannot be cancelled after a lapse of more than four decades. Counsel further submits that once the petitioners got the khatedari rights, the same cannot be cancelled without following the due process of law as contained under Rule 44 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agriculture purposes) Rules of 1970. Counsel further submits that the allotment of the land in question was made in favour of the petitioners as per the Rules of 1956, hence the allotment of the land to the petitioners cannot be cancelled by the respondents in exercise of power contained under Rule 44 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agriculture purposes), Rules 1957 (for short, 'the Rules of 1957'). In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pat Ram and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 948/1986 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 1996 RRD 170. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the father of the petitioners was not a "landless person" as defined under Rule 2(3) of the Rules of 1956 and he was in possession of the land measuring 31 Bighas and 8 biswas land and this fact was intentionally and deliberately concealed by him at the time of getting the allotment by showing himself as a landless person. Counsel submits that several frauds were brought into the notice of the State Government with regard to the false allotments by various persons, hence a commission was constituted in the name and style of "Beri Commission" in the year 1995 who inquired into the matter after issuing notice to all the allottees and thereafter, recommendations were made by the said Commission for cancellation of the allotment issued in favour of several persons including the father of the petitioners i.e. Sultan Khan. Counsel submits that considering the recommendations made by the aforesaid Commission, the Additional Collector, II, Jaipur exercising its power contained under Rule 44 of the Rules of 1970 passed the order impugned by which the allotment of both of the land of the petitioners' father was cancelled. Counsel submits that Rule 1956 were repelled by the new Rules of 1970. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Collector was quite competent to exercise its power contained under Rule 44 of the Rules of 1970 and by exercising the aforesaid power, the allotment of the land to the father of the petitioners was rightly cancelled by the Additional Collector vide order dtd. 30/1/2001. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the Court of RAA by way of filing an appeal but without any basis the RAA has given reference of notional share of the petitioner with regard to land bearing Khasra No.1098/2 in the land of the father of the petitioners i.e. 31 Bighas. Counsel submits that without any basis a distinction was made between two lands which were allotted to father of the petitioners and without any basis the allotment made in favour of the father of the petitioners in the year 1964 with regard to land bearing Khasra No. 1098/2 was restored. Counsel submits that the aforesaid mistake/error committed by the RAA was rectified by the Board while passing the judgment dtd. 11/10/2011 and both allotments made in the favour of the father of the petitioners were ordered to be cancelled. Counsel further submits that judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Anandi Lal (Supra) was brought into the notice of the Full Bench of this Court in a reference in the case of Chiman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in AIR 2000 Rajasthan 206. Counsel submits that after taking into consideration the relevant provisions/Rules and the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, finally the reference was answered against the analogy which was drawn by the Division Bench in the case of Anandi Lal (Supra). Counsel submits that the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Chiman Lal (Supra) has recorded a categorical finding that the Court cannot prescribe or fix any period of limitation and the Court cannot exercise the powers of the Legislature. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is not warranted.