RAJESH KUMAR S/O MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN; BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AT AJMER; COMMISSIONER, COLONIZATION, BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated July 25, 2013, passed by learned Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7257/2011. By the order aforesaid learned Single Bench while setting aside the order dated 31.10.1991, passed by Colonisation Commissioner and the order dated 10.8.2010, passed by Board of Revenue, remanded the issue to hold and conclude enquiry within a period of six months with regard to eligibility of the appellant to have allotment of agricultural land as per provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area), Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975').

(2.) In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the respondent, claiming himself to be a bonafide landless agriculturist, applied for allotment of land as per provisions of the Rules of 1975 and acting upon that a chunk of agricultural land was allotted to him in the year 1985. An anonymous complaint was received by the Colonisation Commissioner on 25.6.1985 about eligibility and entitlement of the respondent for allotment of land. The Colonisation Commissioner, after making an enquiry, dropped the proceedings relating to cancellation of allotment as per Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1975. A revision petition was filed against the order passed by the Colonisation Commissioner before the Board of Revenue which also came to be dismissed on 23.9.1996. A review petition to review the order dated 23.9.1996 was also dismissed on 24.9.1997. A writ petition then was filed before this Court which came to be accepted with a direction to the Board of Revenue to reconsider the revision petitions in light of the observations made in the order. The revision petition was again decided by the Board of Revenue nd that came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.8.2010. To challenge the order passed by the Board of Revenue, a petition for writ was filed that came to be accepted under the judgment impugned and the matter was remanded to the Colonisation Commissioner to have a complete enquiry to examine eligibility and entitlement of the respondent for allotment of land under the Rules of 1975. While accepting the writ petition, learned Single Bench noticed certain important facts, which reads as under:-

(3.) In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the entire matter has already been thrashed out at different levels and, therefore, its further examination from the step one is nothing but a manifest illegality and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.