KRISHNA RAM Vs. JANTRA ROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Kishna Ram and Moola's revision petition against the Rol villagers and others and arises out of the order passed by the Collector, Nagaur, dated 22. 10. 1963. Briefly the facts are that khasra No. 937 consisting of 21 bighas and 13 biswas is situated in village Rol and is recorded in the settlement khasra of this village of Smt. 2000 as Gair Mumkin Magra. By the order of the Assistant Settlement-cum-Record Officer, Circle Jayal, dated 5. 12. 1959 passed by Shri Tej Kumar, this khasra number 937 which was ghair mumkin in this village was declared as 'gochar'. On 26. 3. 1963, the Naib Tehsildar Jayal, discovered that out of this khasra No. 937, 10 bighas of land had been found under cultivation by Moola and Kishna in an unauthorised manner, and he proposed an imposition of penal rent of Rs. 180/- in addition to the rate of Rs. 1/8/- per bigha as the assessed rate and directed that they should be ejected. The Naib Tehsildar, Jayal, again on 27. 3. 1963, after making enquiry and hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that since Moola and Kishna have made the ghair mumkin land as culturable, they should not be ejected and the land should be allotted to them. The Tehsildar Jayal further submitted his report on 10. 7. 1963 that since no objection has been filed by the people of the village Rol for allotment of this land, the land may be allowed to be retained by the present petitioners, provided there is sufficient gochar land in the village. The Collector on this report of the Tehsildar passed the impugned order dated 22. 10. 63, disagreeing with the recommendation of the Tehsildar, and holding that the land was ghair mumkin and gochar and cannot be allotted to the petitioners. It is against this order of the Collector, Nagaur, that the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioners' only contention was that the petitioners have been given khatedari rights by the Settlement department vide order of the Assistant Settlement-cum-Recorcls Officer, Jodhpur, dated 26. 9. 1964, and therefore, they are khatedars and their possession cannot be taken away. THE counsel for the opposite party did not appear. THE case was then examined. It is not known as to when the next settlement operations started after the first settlement of St. 2000. In the first settlement, the land is clearly recorded as ghair mumkin. It appears that in 1956 the Assistant Settlement-cum-Record Officer declared this ghair mumkin land as Gochar, and it was only subsequently that this gochar land was unlawfully trespassed upon by the petitioners and brought under cultivation, and it is on this basis that they got the case reopened in 1964 and claimed khatedari rights over this land. THE Assistant Record Officer vide his order dated 26. 9. 1963 agreed with the previous order of the Senior Officer, the Collector and yet he allowed the 10 bighas of land to be retained in khatedari by the petitioner. This order of the Assistant Record Officer was clearly in conflict with his senior officer's order. THE petitioners were clearly trespassers and once the land was entered as gochar and ghair mumkin, no allotment order could be passed by any body. THE Settlement Officer during the currency of the record operations had no jurisdiction or power whatsoever to confer any khatedari rights over the ghair mumkin or gochar land much less on any other Govt. land. THE competent authority for allotment of land is the Tehsil committee and the rules framed by the Govt. u/s. 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. THEse rules permit allotment of land for agricultural purposes. Rule 4 clearly prohibits the ghair mumkin land to be made allotable. THE order passed even by the Record Officer for issue of khatedari parcha in the name of the present petitioners was illegal and without jurisdiction. THE petitioners were clearly trespassers on the land, and the Tehsildar had already taken action vide his report dated 26. 3. 1963 and 27. 3. 1963, for allotment of this land to the petitioners and imposing of penalty in addition to the assessed rent. Instead of taking any further action in the matter, these revenue officers recommended that this illegal possession in favour of the petitioners be regularised by allotting the land to them. THE learned Collector by his impugned order did not agree with this order. I do not see the Collector committed any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned coten-tion that Government had power to change classification of ghair mumkin and change it into agricultural land, and thus make the allotment of land, to the persons concerned. THE Government have already issued instructions of this kind to the revenue officers. In these circumstances, I have no objection if the further action could be taken according to the Government circular by the Collector concerned, but as the record stands, the petitioners are clearly trespassers on the land. THE subsequent order of the Assistant Records Officer was therefore illegal and without jurisdiction.