SAJAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition for writ has given challenge to the order dated 15- 7-1987 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonization) Bikaner whereby the land allotted to him under Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1954) was cancelled. The petitioner has also assailed validity of the order.dated 16-10-1992 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner in Appeal No. 72/92 and the order dated 25-8-1995 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer in revision petition No. 518/ 92/LR Bikaner whereby the order dated 15-7- 1987 was affirmed.

(2.) The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of present petition are that a land measuring 20 bigha and 45 biswa was allotted to the petitioner in Chak MKD by an order dated 24-2-1975 passed by the Allotment Officer. In pursuance of the order dated 24-2-1975 possession of the land, allotted to the petitioner, was given on 19-7-1977 and the same was certified by the Circular Annexure-2 issued by the Patwari within the jurisdiction of Tehsildar, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner. According to the petitioner after getting possession of the land in question he cultivated the land and was residing thereon. The respondents by the order impugned dated 15-7-1987 cancelled the allotment while exercising the powers under Sections 11/14 of the :Act 0 1954. Prior to it no notice, as required under Sec. 14, was served upon the peti tioner. The petitioner has also stated that Sec. 11 of the Act of 1954 is having no application in the present controversy. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that Sec. 14 pertains to penalty for breach of conditions and these penalties could be imposed only after following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 14 of the Act of 1954. According to the counsel for the petitioner the procedure prescribed under Sec. 14 of the Act of 1954 was not adhered by the respondents while cancelling the allotment made in his favour. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue also did not appreciate the provisions of Sec. 14, and thus, all the orders suffer from an error which is apparent on the face of record.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonization) Bikaner the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and also the order passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer.