MANGLA RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE . petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 11.5.89 (Annex. 1) passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the order at annex. 2 dated 13.12.83 passed by R.A.A. and the impugned cancellation order dated 19.2.80.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was an agriculturist, having land, was initially allotted land in question on temporary basis in 1973. Thereafter, permanent allotment of the said land was made in his favour on 30.8.74 under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975. On a complaint made by one Sukhia, his allotment was cancelled by the allotting authority by an order dated 19.2.80 after giving him a notice to show cause as to why his allotment should not be cancelled. Aggrieved of that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before R.A.A. which was dismissed by order at Annex. 2 and the revision was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue by an order at Annex. 1, which are under challenge in this petition, which is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) APART from the fact that this contention was raised for the first time regarding applicability of Section 14 of the Act before this Court in this petition, this contention has no force on merits also. Section 14 of the Act and Rule 14 of the Rules are totally different. Cancellation order of allotment can only be passed under Rule 21. Mr. Bhati appearing for the respondent rightly submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall under Section 14 of the Act but under Rule 21 of the Rules. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not cultivating the land for a particular period. In fact, the petitioner himself had admitted that he was not cultivating the land for a particular period. The allotment can be cancelled if the person is not personally cultivating the land for a particular period. Secondly, even if he was having 14 bighas land which is less than minimum limit of 25 bighas of land as provided under the definition of 'landless person' then also cancellation order could have been passed because it was a suppression of fact. If he had pointed out while applying for permanent allotment that he was already having 14 bighas of land then the allotting authority could have considered the fact at the time of allotment. Cancellation order of allotment can be passed on the suppression of fact or for non -cultivation for a particular period. Both the criterid were satisfied in this case. Therefore, the cancellation order was passed by the Allotting Authority and in my opinion, the R.A.A. and the Board of Revenue have rightly dismissed the appeal and revision respectively. Hence, this contention of Mr. Shreemali is rejected.