SURENDRA NARAIN GOSWAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26-10-1983 whereby a writ petition challenging the order of Khudkast Commissioner dated 25-3-1975 was dismissed.

(2.) One Kameshwar Goswami was treated as Jagirdar while 36 other persons were mentioned as co-sharers. Father of the appellant Jogeshwar was one of the co-sharers in the amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant payable from the resumption of jagir.

(3.) The co-sharers applied for allotment of land as ex-Jagirdars under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'). The Khudkast Commissioner treating these co-sharers as former Jagirdars allotted them land measuring one murabba each vide order dated 16-12-1965. A complaint appears to have been made that the allotment was secured on false representation and the Government vide the order dated 5-10-1968 directed the Khudkast Commissioner to look into the matter under Section 19-B of the Act. This was objected to by the co-sharers on the ground that the Government should itself enquire under Section 19-B of the Act and the Khudkast Commissioner could not examine the matter. The Khudkast Commissioner suspended the enquiry and referred the matter to the State Government for necessary direction. After the necessary directions were received from the State Government, the Khudkast Commissioner decided to proceed in the matter under Section 40-A of the Act. The petitioner and other allottees objected to the review petition mainly on the ground that the same was without jurisdiction, unauthorised and that the allotment having been made in the year 1965 could not be reopened and no suo motu review proceedings can be initiated. The Khudkast Commissioner after examining the entire controversy and looking into the provisions of the Act passed a detailed order on 25-3- 1975, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and other co-sharers and ordered that the case was fit to be reviewed suo motu. This order was challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order.