GRAM PANCHAYAT KATHAWALA Vs. ROOP NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed by the Gram Panchayat Kathawala alias Jai Laxmi-pura, Tehsil Chaksu is directed against the order of the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur East dated the 4th March, 1963 registering the respondents as Members of the Co-operative Society known as Shiv Doongari Beed Samuhik Krishi Sehkari Samiti Ltd.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that Khasra No. 1/12 within the boundary of the Gram Panchayat Kathawala known as Shiv Doongari Beed consisted of 304 bighas and 3 biswas. At present this land is under the control of the Forest Department and is about to be handed over to the Revenue Department for allotment for agricultural purposes. The respondents who registered themselves as the Members of the Society are the residents of the village Bhapura, Tehsil Sanganer and not of Shiv Doongari Beed. They have formed themselves into a society in order to secure the allotment of land of the Shiv Doongari area and thus to deprive the landless persons of that area proper. The counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that this registration of the society was an infringement of sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 as well as R. 4 of the allotment of land to Co-operative Societies Rules, 59, inasmuch as that under the former Act the members of the Cooperative Society do not belong to the same village in which the land is situated and under the allotment rules the procedure laid down in R. 4 has not been followed, which required that the landless tenants applications are to be invited for allotment of land by the Tehsildar who would make the allotment in Majma-aam i. e. in general meeting in consultation with the Advisory Committee. After the list of such persons is scrutinized and they are declared eligible then alone such members are eligible for registration into the co-operative society. The counsel, further argued that by previously registering themselves into a society the respondents can always lay their claim on a preferential basis as against the local inhabitants of that area. The counsel for the respondents' reply was that no infringement of sec. 10 of the Cooperative Societies Act has taken place. The respondent could always give an undertaking to reside in the village in which their land would be allotted. Further the revision petition of the petitioner is premature as the time of allotment of land has not yet arrived.