LEELADHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6th October, 1969, passed by the Collector, Ganganagar and the orders dated December 20, 1971 and January 12, 1973, passed by the State Government. The facts briefly stated, are as under.

(2.) ON February 15, 1968, the Collector Ganganagar, issued a notice whereby it was notified that those cultivators of land in Bhakra Project who have less than 12 bighas of canal irrigated land could apply for allotment of additional land in the same village so as to enable them to have 15 bighas of such land. The applications for allotment of land were required to be submitted to the Revenue Tehsildar concerned in the prescribed form by the 15th March, 1968. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner, who was in possession of less than 15 bighas of land, submitted an application for allotment of additional land On the said application of the petitioner, the Tehsildar, Suratgarh, on 14th May, 1968, submitted a report to the Collector, wherein he recommended that 104 bighas of land be allotted to the petitioner to make up the 15 bighas of land to which the petitioner was entitled. On the basis of the aforesaid report of Tehsildar, the Collector, by his order dated May 24, 1969, allotted 8 bighas, 3 biswas of land to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per bigha. In puissance of the aforesaid order of allotment, the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 2037.50 purse on May 28, 1969 and the possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner on June 1, 1969

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector had cancelled the allotment in favour of the petition on the erroneous assumption that possession of the land which was allotted to the petitioner had earlier been delivered to Respondent No. 4 and, therefore, the said land could not be allotted to the petitioner. The learned Counsel has also submitted that while dealing with the revision petition of the petitioner, the State Government had also proceeded on the same erroneous assumption and further that the State Government had misconceived the matter in issue in the case and had wrongly proceeded on the basis that the matter in issue was whether the petitioner could imam a right to be allotted land in preference to despondent No. 4. It is urged that the State Government failed to notice that in so far as respondent No. 4 was concerned, the allotment in his favour had been restricted to 11 bighas and 12 biswas only and he bad no right in the additional land which had been allotted to the petitioner and that there was no question of respondent No 4 claiming any preference over the petitioner in the matter of allotment of this land.