RAJA RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 5 got the allotment of land in dispute on 15. 2. 1974. Against that allotment, an application was made on the ground that the allottee was not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan on 1. 4. 55 and, therefore, the allotment should be cancelled. The allotting authority went into the matter and recorded a finding that on 1. 4. 55 the allottee was not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan and, therefore, he was not entitled for allotment. The allotment was cancelled on 27. 07. 1976. RESPONDENT No. 5 filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed in default and the application for restoration was also dismissed. He went up in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The matter was decided by the Board of Revenue on 28. 07. 1982. They came to the conclusion that while there was no fault in the order of the appellate authority in not restoring the appeal, they noticed that in the mean time the High Court had struck down the provision, which said that the citizen must be a bonafide resident of State of Rajasthan on 1. 4. 55, is ultra vires and, therefore, exercised their power under Section 9 of the Land Revenue Act (for short, 'the Act') that is the general power of superintendence and control on all revenue courts and revenue officers and in the interest of justice said that since there was no requirement in law to be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan on 1. 4. 55, the order of cancellation was without jurisdiction and restored the allotment to respondent No. 5.

(2.) DURING the pendency of proceedings initiated by respondent No. 5 in the year 1980, the same very land was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner was heard by the Board of Revenue while passing order dated 28-7-82. Since order of restoration of the land was passed in favour of respondent No. 5, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) IT was then argued that petitioner is a third person and his rights have come into being and, therefore, there should have been no interference by the Board under Sec. 9 of the Act.