RAJU SON OF THINU CHOWDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE TEHSILDAR, ANOOPGARH, DISTRICT SRI GANGANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Raju has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 1.5.1992 passed by the S.D.O. (Revenue), Raisinghnagar whereby, the allotment of the agriculture land admeasuring 25 bighas to the petitioner under the Raj Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government land to Pong Dam Oustees & their transferees in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules of 1972') was cancelled as well as the order dated 14.8.1998 passed by the Special Court (Pong Dam Oustees Cases) Sri Ganganagar rejecting the review application preferred by this petitioner against such cancellation.

(2.) Shri Purohit learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Budania urges that the allotment was made to the petitioner under the Rules of 1972 in the year 1973. As per Rule 6 (3) of the Rules of 1972, the initial allotment was to be treated for gair khatedari tenure but the khatedari rights would accrue to the allottee upon expiry of 10 years from the date of allotment. Cancellation of allotment was made by relying upon Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 1972 which would have no application because the department failed to prove that the land in question was transferred within the period of gair khatedari tenure. The petitioner during the review proceedings before the Special Court, filed numerous document to show that he was in possession of land in question for more than 10 years and thus, had gained khatedari rights thereupon and was free to transfer the same. However, the Special Court did not even consider refer to such documents while rejecting the review application preferred by the petitioner. He thus submits that the impugned orders being grossly illegal, perverse and bad in law, deserve to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra Mr. A.R. Godara learned counsel for the respondent department vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. However, he too was not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioner submitted numerous documents on record along with his review application filed before the Special Court but such documents apparently were not considered by the Special Court while rejecting the review application.