RAM PRATAP Vs. LRS. OF MANSUKHRAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 17.01.2007, decision rendered by the Board of Revenue dt. 30.07.1990, as well as the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority dt. 12.09.1983. The appellant further prayed for restoration of the order passed by the Assistant Collector dt. 05.11.1981.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the controversy are that the appellant -petitioner preferred a suit under Sections 88, 188 and 92 -A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955 ') before the Assistant Collector, Nohar. The appellant had come out with a case that land of old Khasra No. 346 was in continued possession of the appellant 's father since before Samvat 1990 and, in Samvat 2005, the appellant was separated from his father and the land was given to him. Since Samvat 2005, the appellant claimed to be in continuous peaceful and unobstructed possession of the land. In para 2 of the plaint, the appellant stated that he was eligible for allotment of said land as per Bhakhra Colonization Land Settlement and Allotment Rules, 1955 (in short, 'the Rules of 1955 '). The appellant submitted that in pursuant to the Rules of 1955, he had submitted an application for allotment of land as he was not only adult, having independent family, but was otherwise having no other land. It was alleged that due to the political pressure, the land was allotted to non -appellants Nos. 1 and 2, while appellant continued to be in possession. According to the appellant, allotment of the land to non -appellants Nos. 1 and 2 was not only illegal being contrary to the Rules of 1955, but was in ignorance of the rights of the appellant. The appellant further submitted that various criminal and other proceedings were initiated by the parties, but therein also, possession of the appellant was upheld. Despite that, non -appellants Nos. 1 and 2 tried to dispossess the appellant from the land in reference. Thus, the appellant was left with no option but to file a suit before the Court of the Assistant Collector. The suit filed by the appellant was contested by the non -appellants No. 1 and 2. It was submitted that the appellant was not entitled for allotment of land under the Rules of 1955 and otherwise also, the application submitted by the appellant for allotment of land to him was considered and finally decided by the Additional Commissioner, Bikaner Division vide his order dt. 23.01.1961, whereby the appellant 's appeal was dismissed. The non -appellants further submitted that the allotment of land was not influenced by any political pressure, but the same was done on its merit. It was submitted that the non -appellant belongs to reserve caste and thereby, considering their application, the Revenue Authorities took a decision to allot land in reference to non -appellants No. 1 and 2. It was the case of the non -appellants that after the decision of the Additional Commissioner dt. 23.01.1961, the appellant cannot seek allotment of land indirectly, which otherwise he could not secure directly. Thus, non -appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THE appellant submitted that as per Bikaner Tenancy Act, he was a Khatedar of the land and thereby as per the provisions of the Bikaner Tenancy Act itself, he should be treated as ''Khatedar '', hence under the Rules of 1955, the land could not have been allotted to the non -appellants No. 1 and 2. It was submitted that as per Section 5(24) of the Bikaner Tenancy Act coupled with Section 24 of the said Act, he became a ''Khatedar '' of the land as the land was being possessed not only by him, but his father as well as grand -father. The further case of the appellant is that after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, he became ''Khatedar '', even by virtue of the Act of 1955. It was submitted that the Act of 1955 came into force on 15.10.1955 and as on the aforesaid relevant date, he was in possession of the land thus acquired Khatedari rights by operation of law. It was further asserted by the appellant that once he became Khatedar of the land in reference under the Act of 1955, the land was not available for allotment under the Rules of 1955 as it cannot either be considered to be a Government land or unoccupied land.