NANU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Smt. Jayana is a wife of Patwari Foota Ram, who was the Government servant and daughter of Shri Lekh Ram. In 1965, the land in question was allotted to her as a daughter of Lekh Ram and not wife of Foota Ram, though she was married. Her husband was Patwari at the relevant point of time. When this fact came to the notice of the allotting authority, the allotment made in her favour was cancelled under Section 101(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. However, she managed to retain the possession even after the allotment was cancelled for number of years. In 1975, she applied for regularisation before the S.D.O. and the same was regularised. Meanwhile, in 1974, the said land was allotted to the present petitioner Smt. Nanu wo/o Suraja Ram. Out of 42 bighas of land allotted to her, she was given possession of 23 bighas and the possession of remaining jan of 29 bighas remained to continue with the respondent No. 4. The petitioner applied before the Collector under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules, 1970). The Collector by his order dated 25.8.81 cancelled the allotment as he was of the view that the S.D.O. did not carefully examined the case and ordered regularisation, though a fraud was plated by the respondent No. 4. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent No. 4 filed a second appeal before the Revenue Board, which was allowed vide order dated 13.8.81 (Annex. 2) and the order passed by the Collector setting aside the regularisation, was set aside. Against which the petitioner preferred a review petition which was also rejected by order at Annex.l dated 25.10.91 Aggrieved by the impugned orders Annex. 1 and 2, the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Parihar vehemently submitted that the Collector had rightly passed the order on 25.8.81 and cancelled the regularisation order passed by the S.D.O. and the Revenue Board ought not to have interfered with the same in the second appeal. He submitted that the Revenue Board was in clear error in allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that there is a prohibition of allotment made to the family members of the Government employee under Section 101 of the Act, but there is no bar in regularising the possession. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order at Annex. 2 and Annex. 1 passed in review petition be set aside.

(3.) IN Brij Lal's case, facts were totally different. Only similarity is that the respondent No. 4 is in possession for more than 32 years. Except that there is no similarity. While cancelling the regularisation made by S.D.O., the Collector found that a fraud was played by the husband of respondent No. 4 in getting the allotment in her favour and the S.D.O. failed to carefully examined the matter and granted regularisation.