DAULAT SINGH SON OF MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This wit petition has been filed by the petitioners contending that land bearing Khasra No. 723/16 measuring 2 bigha was regularised by Assistant Collector, Bayana vide decree dated 16.04.1985 through mutation no. 788 in favour of Ram Dayal son of Deepu, who was khudkast Khatedar of the land in dispute in Samvat 2012-15. Thereafter, the aforesaid land came in the khatedari right from his father vide mutation no. 788, category of which is padat. The said land is neither Government nor Gair Mumkin River, which was shown in Samvat 2012-15. Names of the petitioners have also been shown in Jamabandi of Samvat 2065-68. After lapse of 56 years, Respondent No. 4 issued notice/reference on 23.12.2011 to the petitioners under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The petitioners submitted detailed reply before Respondent No. 3 on 22.01.2014. Respondent No. 3 vide its judgment dated 26.06.2014 sent the reference to Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of allotment of aforesaid land made in favour of Karan Singh son of Bhola and enter the aforesaid land as Gair Mumkin River of Government. Respondent No. 2 vide judgment dated 11.02.2016 entered the aforesaid in the Government land as Gair Mumkin River category and cancelled the mutation No. 788, 832, 1150, 1163 and 1193. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that due to illegal action of the respondents, the petitioners have become landless and there is no source of livelihood of the petitioners, except the aforesaid land. Hence, present writ petition be allowed and judgments/orders dated 23.12.2011, 26.06.2014 and 11.02.2016 be quashed and set aside.

(2.) Perusal of judgment dated 26.06.2014 passed by Additional District Collector, Bharatpur indicates that there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and allotment of land made against the law can be cancelled at any time. Additional District Collector, Bharatpur has referred to order passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition(PIL) No. 1536/2003 titled as Abdul Rehman v. State wherein directions were issued for recording the land in the name of Government where the land has been allotted against the law.

(3.) The Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 11.02.2016 has affirmed findings of the Additional Collector, Bharatpur and additionally recorded a finding that as per provisions of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 1970, land of river cannot be allotted for a public purpose. The disputed land was recorded as river land therefore it ought not to have been allotted to the petitioners and the allotment of aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. Perusal of the impugned judgments make it clear that there is no illegality or perversity in the same, which calls for no interference. It would be, however, open to the petitioners to apply for fresh allotment, if they are found eligible under the relevant rules.