JANTA GRAM LAHCHODA GADI PATTI Vs. REVTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions have been filed against the order of the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur, dated 20. 6. 66, whereby he rejected the revision filed by the petitioners against the orders of the Land Allotment Advisory Committee, village Lahchoda dated 28. 12. 65. Briefly stated the facts are that 19 persons were recommended for allotment of land by the Advisory Committee on 28. 12. 65 on the ground that they were landless and belonged to scheduled castes in village Lahchoda out of Khasra No. 848/1. The petitioners felt aggrieved against this recommendation and filed a revision petition against all the 19 persons in the court of the Collector, Sawai Madhopur on 5. 3. 66. The Collector dismissed the revision petition as non-maintainable stating that under the Land Allotment Rules, there was a provision for appeal, but the petitioners had not availed of the same. It appeared to him that the revision had been filed because the period of limitation for the appeal had elapsed. The Collector, further, held that a joint revision petition had been filed against all the 19 persons and this too was not in accordance with the law. Under the circumstances he held that this revision petition was not maintainable and rejected the same. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed revision petitions against 17 of the allottees which came up for hearing before me at the last hearing.

(2.) IT has been urged before me that the petition filed before the Collector was not a revision petition, but was a petition for making a reference under see. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the Collector has erred in holding that a petition under sec. 82 was not maintainable. IT has further been urged that the land allotted was not unoccupied land and was not, therefore, available for allotment and that the Collector has acted illegally in overlooking the fact that the land was used for grazing of the cattle and the same was recorded as available for grazing. IT has been stated inter alia that the land had been recommended to be declared as pasture land by the S. D. O. and the papers were pending with the Collector and that the Tehsildar was fully aware of the fact as the recommendation had been initated by him. Under the circumstances, it is contended that the Collector has acted illegally in ignoring the fact that the land was of the nature specified in sec. 5 (28) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and was liable to be declared as pasture land and as such it was not available for allotment which has been made in the breach of the allotment rules. IT is contended that the impugned order has set at naught the proceedings for the declaration of pasture land and has resulted in abridging the rights of the village community and, therefore, this court could set it aside in its revisional jurisdiction.