LAWS(RAJ)-2019-1-438

RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE, AJMER

Decided On January 11, 2019
RAJENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
BOARD OF REVENUE, AJMER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dt. 7/12/17 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 28/7/16 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA'), Sri Ganganagar, setting aside the orders dt. 13/4/15 and 27/4/15 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) (Revenue), Gharsana, has been dismissed and consequently, the order passed by the RAA, Sri Ganganagar, quashing the allotment of medium patch land made in favour of the petitioner by the SDO, Gharsana and remanding the matter for fresh consideration stands upheld.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioner made an application for allotment of 6 bigha uncommand land comprising Murabba No. 16/56 Kila No. 13 to 18 in Chak 6KHM as medium patch of Government land under Rule 14A of Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 ('the Rules'). The petitioner was holding 4 bighas land in adjoining Murabba of the same Chak i.e. Murabba No. 16/48 Kila No. 22 to 25. The SDO, Gharsana, vide order dt. 13/4/15 allotted to the petitioner 1.15 hectare Government land comprising Murabba No. 16/56 Kila No. 13 to 18 at the DLC rate Rs.2,97,500.00 per hectare for Rs.4,11,700.00. As per the order dt. 13/4/15, the notices were issued to the tenants holding the land in Murabba No. 16/56 as also the tenants holding the land in adjoining murabba, however, nobody having preferential right of allotment appeared pursuant thereto. Pursuant to the order dt. 13/4/15 the allotment order was issued by the SDO, Gharsana in favour of the petitioner on 27/4/15.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dt. 13/4/15 and 27/4/15, the respondent Tek Chand holding the land comprising Murabba No. 16/56 preferred an appeal before the RAA, Sri Ganganagar, while impleading other tenants, who had preferential right for allotment of the disputed land as party respondents.