SUKH RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against order dt. 22.3.12 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby while accepting the reference made by the Additional District Collector, Nagaur in respect of the land measuring 12 bighas comprising sabik khasra No. 73 situated at village -Sarasani, the land is directed to be recorded in the revenue record as gair mumkin angore. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after registering the reference, notices were directed to be issued by the Board of Revenue to inter alia the petitioner herein. It is submitted that on 29.07.2011 it was recorded in the order sheet that nobody is present on behalf of the respondent No. 3 despite service and regarding respondent No. 4, it was recorded that he has refused to accept the notice. On the next date i.e. 13.02.2012, the matter was adjourned to 17.09.2012. In the meantime, an application was preferred on behalf of the State for early hearing of the matter. The application was allowed vide order dt. 14.03.212, the final arguments were heard and the order was reserved and later, on 22.03.2012 the judgment was pronounced. Learned counsel submitted that the next date in the matter having been fixed as 17.09.2012 there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear before the Board of Revenue before the said date. It is submitted that the petitioner was never served with the copy of the application seeking preponement of the date of hearing nor the notice was given to the petitioner regarding date of hearing of the matter being preponed. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned affecting the rights of the petitioner adversely has been passed by the Board of Revenue without extending an opportunity of hearing to him and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

(2.) Learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submitted that from the perusal of the order sheets it is apparent that no notice regarding the preponement of the date of hearing was given to the petitioner. However, it is submitted that in view of the Bench decision of this Court, the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and persued the material on record.