RICHHPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up on an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte ad interim order dated 9.5.2018.

(2.) With the consent of counsel for the petitioners and the JDA, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) Mr.Amit Kuri counsel appearing for the respondent- JDA submitted that the petitioners now have no right as claimed to any land in Khasra Nos.76, 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 in Village Kukas, Tehsil Amer inasmuch as they are the successors of one Kana Ram who was an allottee of the Kupanya Badh Sanyukt Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Kukas (hereinafter 'Samiti') which itself on 10.6.1959 had been allotted 400 bighas by the State Government under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land to Co-Operative Societies) Rules, 1959 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1959') but was subsequently liquidated on 23.12.2005 and the land allotted to it resumed on 7.11.2014 under the Collector's order. The liquidation of the Samiti and resumption of land earlier allotted to it has attained finality. No member/ allottee of the Samiti or any successor of such member can claim any legal right in the land initially allotted to the Samiti and thereafter by it to its members and its protection by this Court. Mr.Amit Kuri submitted that following the resumption dated 7.11.2014 the Samiti and its members and their successors, would be for all purposes, mere trespassers. But in fact the petitioners are not even in that situation as they have been amongst others evicted and dispossessed from time to time as on 21.4.2018 and 4.10.2018. Even mutation of the land in dispute presently stands with the JDA under mutation no.790 dated 19.11.2014. Mr.Amit Kuri submitted that in the circumstance the petitioners have no right under Rule 20 (3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for the Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1970') which they now belatedly seek to agitate after filing of the petition. Mr.Amit Kuri submitted that as a result the petitioners' purported application under Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1970 belatedly filed on 11.7.2018 subsequent to the filing of the petition on 30.4.2018 is an abuse of the process, a mere fig leaf in a crass attempt to appropriate public property and hence is of no event. The petitioners cannot maintain this petition on such a bogus application.