KASTURI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Kasturi challenging order dated 16.07.1981 passed by the Government of Rajasthan in its Revenue (Ceiling) Department for reopening ceiling decision dated 23.04.1975 under the old law, order dated 26.03.1992 of the Board of Revenue enlarging scope of reopening, order dated 26.03.1993 passed by Additional District Magistrate and orders dated 15.12.1995 and 22.12.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner Smt. Kasturi is daughter of Shri Gopilal Meena. She belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. She was married to one Shri Ram Gopal Meena. It was a 'nata' marriage. Out of this wedlock, she had one male issue Rajendra. According to petitioner, Ram Gopal divorced the petitioner on 25.12.1962 as per the customs of Meena community, and he contacted second marriage with Smt. Kanchan Bai, which is considered equivalent to marriage in their community. Shri Gopilal, father of petitioner, had no other issue except petitioner, she being his sole daughter, inherited his all the lands which were entered in his name in revenue record prior to 01.04.1966, the prescribed date for the old ceiling law. Shri Ram Gopal has been living with second wife Smt. Kanchan Bai and out of that wedlock he had one son Ramswaroop. Since 25.12.1962, petitioner has no relation with Shri Ram Gopal. Petitioner was assessed for the land, which she received from her father Shri Gopilal, under the old ceiling law. The Sub Divisional officer, Kota, vide order dated 23.04.1975, held that the petitioner was having total 50.61 standard acres of land and out of which the petitioner is entitled to retain only 30 standard acre and thus declared 20.61 standard acres of land to be surplus in her hand. Petitioner then was assessed under the new ceiling law, and held that petitioner should have been calculated to have possessed 73.44 standard acres instead of 50.61 standard acres, and consequently 43.44 standard acres should have been acquired as surplus instead of 20.61 standard acres. The SDO held that petitioner was having 20.61 standard acres surplus land. She was also assessed under the new ceiling law of 1973. She was having 1.90 ordinary acres as surplus land. The land declared to be surplus under old ceiling law being more was acquired and taken in possession by the Government.

(3.) The Government, vide order dated 16.07.1981 reopened the order passed under the old ceiling law. In the order, the ground of reopening was specifically mentioned that the calculation/conversion of ordinary acres into standard acres has not been done keeping in view the fact of land being command/un -command. It was stated that the land held by petitioner should have been calculated as 73.44 standard acres instead of 50.61 standard acres, and consequently 43.44 standard acres should have been acquired as surplus instead of 20.61 standard acres, which has been acquired, when the matter reached to Additional District Magistrate, he held that calculation of the standard acres has to be done as per the entry in the revenue records obtaining on 01.04.1966. He by order dated 12.11.1990, also held that petitioner submitted documentary proof/certificate to the effect that the land was not receiving irrigation facility and held that the calculation of standard acres was proper in order dated 23.04.1975 and was correct. The State Government filed appeal against order dated 12.11.1990 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 26.03.1992, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Additional District Magistrate, to decide it afresh. The Additional District Magistrate again decided the matter by order dated 26.06.1993 holding that the land of the petitioner should have been clubbed with the land of her husband Shri Ram Gopal and thus further held that the entire land held by petitioner should be declared surplus and acquired. Petitioner filed appeal before the Board of Revenue against order dated 26.06.1993, which has been dismissed by order dated 15.12.1995. The Board held that since the land of Shri Ram Gopal, being sought to be clubbed with the land of the petitioner, the land in the account of Shri Ram Gopal should be acquired first before taking land of the petitioner. Petitioner filed review petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.1999. The papers were received in the office of the Additional District Magistrate on 17.04.2000 and the Additional District Magistrate made endorsement on the relevant file that the land of the petitioner should be taken possession, it was then the petitioner enquired by filing an application before the Additional Collector on 19.08.2000 and requested that in compliance of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, the land of Shri Ram Gopal should be first taken before acquiring the land of the petitioner, when it was not done, the petitioner approached this Court.