LAWS(RAJ)-1955-9-38

GANPAT SINGH Vs. SUNDER SINGH

Decided On September 10, 1955
GANPAT SINGH Appellant
V/S
SUNDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances which have given rise to this application for revision against the order of the learned Commissioner, Bikaner, dated the 3rd May, 1955, may be stated as below - Sunder Singh the non-applicant, applied for the grant of ahata No 82 on raiyatana on 21-3-52 to Tehsildar Hanumangarh who issued a notice inviting objections within 15 days as to the sale of the land to the non-applicant. THEreupon two persons Jeet Singh and Pooran Singh applied for the allotment of same land, but their applications were dismissed by the Tehsidar as they were received after the expertly of the period fixed for filing objections. Subsequently the applicant Ganpat Singh presented an application on 4 3-53 for the allotment of the land to him. This was also rejected as being time barred. THE Naib-Tehsildar to whom the application of the non-applicant was sent for enquiry, recommended the allotment of the Ahata in question to him. THE Tehsildar did not however agree with the proposal and recommended that the land in question be given to Ganpat Singh, the applicant, as he had no residential plot of his own in this village where he had been cultivating an agricultural holding. THE Assistant Collector however did not accept the recommendation of the Tehsildar as according to him the application of the applicant stood rejected as being barred by time and sanctioned the allotment in favour of the non-applicant. In appeal before the learned Collector Ganganagar the order given by the Assistant Collector was reversed and the allotment was ordered to be made in the name of the applicant. In second appeal the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, set aside the order given by the Collector and agreeing with the Assistant Collector Hanumangarh ordered the Ahata to be allotted to Sunder Singh. Hence this revision application to the Board.

(2.) WE have gone through the record of the case and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.