DHONKAL RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutions, the petitioner challenges the legality of the order dated January 5, 1977 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and prays for annulling the same.

(2.) BRIEFLY recapitulated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Dhonkal Ram and non-petitioner No. 5 Hanuman jointly held Khatedari lands situate in Chak 1 Y in Tehsil Ganganagar as mentioned in para 1 of the petition. Subsequently, due to partition, 23 Bighas in Murabba Number 8 and one Bigha in Murabba No 14 alongwith some other land came to the share of non-petitioner Hanuman, while the rest of Murabba No. 14 (which is the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition) alongwith other land went to the share of the petitioner. The non-petitioner Hanuman filed an application before the Collector, Ganganagar under condition 8 (2) of the Raj. Colonization (General Colony) Conditions, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Conditions) for granting him a way through the petitioner's Kila numbers 10, 11, 20 and 21 of Murabba No. 14. The Collector, after hearing the parties, passed an order on May 25, 1973. He allowed the application and directed the petitioner to allow a way through his fields to non-petitioner Hanuman. The non-petitioner Hanuman was directed to bear the expenses for carving out the aforesaid way and to give twice of the land from his Murabba as compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner felt aggrieved and went in appeal, which was heard and decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority on August 27, 1974. He held that the Conditions were not applicable to the land in question. He, therefore, set-aside the order of the Collector and dismissed the application filed by the non-petitioner Hanuman. The non-petitioner Hanuman felt aggrieved and challenged the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of an appeal in the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned Single Member of the Board allowed the appeal, set-aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and restored that of the Collector. The petitioner has filed this writ petition and challenges the legality of the order passed by the Board of Revenue mainly on two grounds - (1) no second appeal lies against an order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, and (2) the provisions of the Conditions are not applicable to the lands in question. It was alleged in the writ petition that the parties i. e. the petitioner and the non-petitioner Hanuman were holding the land even before the commencement of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, (for short 'the Act' ). The Conditions have been framed under the Act As such, neither the provisions of the Act nor are the Conditions applicable to the lands held by the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 5 Hanuman.

(3.) COMING to the second contention, which is the main and principal ground of attack, it was contended by Mr. Arora - learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and non-petitioner Hanuman were the land-holders in Chak 1y before the commencement of the Act. As such, the provisions of the Act and the Conditions are not applicable to them. Developing the contention further, it was argued by Mr. Arora that when the Act and the Conditions are not applicable to the lands in question held by the parties, the Collector had no authority to carve out a new way in the petitioner's field for the benefit of non-petitioner Hanuman. He has invited my attention to conditions No. 4 and 8 of the Conditions. Reliance was also placed on section 20 of the Act. It was contended that the petitioner, under section 20 of the Act, is bound only by the Conditions mentioned in the Schedule attached with the Act. No other condition except those contained in Schedule can be imposed on him and much less of the Conditions, 1955.