LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED MAWJI AND ANOTHER Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE OF RAJASTHAN, AJMER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two special appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.7.2002, dismissing the writ petitions.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the instant special appeals are that the respondents Ganga and Vela were allotted 5 bighas of land in Khasra No. 806 in Village Kherwara on 21.6.1984 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1970'). It is claimed by the respondents that the allotment was not under the Rule of 1970 but under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unculturable Waste Land for Development of Private Forest) Rules, 1983. However, the mutation of the subject land was sanctioned in the name of allottees as late as on 6.8.1993. The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Mawaji.

(3.) An application under section 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 was filed for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the respondents Ganga and Vela in the Court of S.D.M. The deceased Vela set up the case stating inter alia that he was a land-less person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. He was in cultivatory possession of the subject land for last more than 25 years. He came to know about the allotment of land on 31.1.1994, when respondent No. 5 arrived on the land to dispossess him. On his discloser he came to know about the allotment of this land. On inquiry it further revealed that the mutation was also made in his favour on 5.8.1993. The deceased Mawji took stand that had there been any proclamation as required under the Rules, he could have raised the objection. He could also claim allotment on priority being a person of Scheduled Tribe and an ex-service man. The matter was heard by the Additional District Collector, Udaipur. He found that in absence of proclamation the allotment was illegal. Accordingly, the allotment was cancelled by order of the Additional District Collector dated 7.2.1995. The revenue appellate authority confirmed the order in appeal. In second appeal a copy of the proclamation was filed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27, Code Criminal Procedure On the basis of the said document the Board of Revenue allowed the second appeal and set aside the orders of the revenue appellate authority as well as the Additional District Collector. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue.