KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Kishan Lal, on 18-5-72, was permanently allotted 47 Rights of un-command land situated in Square No. 57/ 350 and 57/359 in Chak 7-STG, P.D. 81608. A complaint was made against Shri Kishan Lal that he is not the resident of Rajasthan and has sold this land without taking prior permission from the Collector and, therefore, the allotment of the land made in his favour may be cancelled, Notices were issued to Kishan Lal and after holding an enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, Suratgarh Camp cancelled the allotment made in favour of Kishan Lal and ordered for resumption of the tenancy as he has contravened the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act and the breach committed by him is not capable of rectification. He, however, decided the question of bona fide residence in favour of Kishan Lal.

(2.) Dissatisfied with the order dated 21-12-76 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, cancelling the allotment and ordering for resumption of the tenancy. Shri Kishan Lal filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Additional Commissioner Colonisation cum Revenue Appellate Authority, R.C.P., Bikaner (Camp Suratgarh), by its order dated 12-1-79, dismissed the appeal filed by Kishan Lal. The Second appeal filed by appellant Kishan Lal against this order, also, did not find favour with the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 8-11-82.

(3.) Kishan Lal thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by petitioner Kishan Lal on the grounds that (i) the transfer of the land made by the petitioner was inconsistent with the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Act, which cannot be recognised and the Authorities were right in resuming the tenancy; (ii) the matter relates to the disputed questions of fact and, also, a plea which has not been taken in the Courts below and which cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in the writ petition; and (iii) the Deputy Commissioner colonisation has the power under Sec. 13(2) to resume the land. It is against this judgment dated 18-4-83 passed by the learned single Judge that the appellant-petitioner has preferred this appeal.