BHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 13.9.1978 by which the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Ghadsana, Tehsil Anoopgarh, after hearing the petitioner, ordered that since the land in question has been ordered to be allotted on permanent cultivation basis to respondent Patram, therefore, the possession of the land measuring 6 bighas 6 biswas allotted to Karamchand may be taken back from said Karamchand and possession may be delivered to Patram. Said order was challenged by Karamchand by preferring Appeal No. 856/78 before the Additional Commissioner cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Rajasthan Nahar Project, Bikaner in his lifetime. Appeal was dismissed by the said appellate authority vide order dated 12.1.1983. Karamchand preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue to challenge the orders dated 13.9.1978 and 12.1.1983. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition of said Karamchand vide order dated 13.4.1993. It appears that during pendency of the revision petition, Karamchand died and his legal representatives were taken on record, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by one of legal representatives of deceased Karamchand to challenge the above mentioned orders including the order of the Board of Revenue dated 13.4.1993.

(3.) IN view of the order dated 17.5.1978, Patram submitted an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Rajasthan Canal Project, Ghadsana and prayed that part of land i.e. 6 bighas 6 biswas which has been handed over to Karamchand may be taken back by the State and may be delivered to Patram. Said application was allowed by Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 13.9.1978 after hearing both the parties and the Assistant Commissioner directed that the possession of land measuring 6 bighas 6 biswas of Chak No. 2DD which was allotted to Karamchand under the Rules of 1971 during the pendency of the appeal preferred by Patram, may be handed over to Patram. Said order was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue as stated above.