VISHNU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dtd. 12/1/17 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the judgment and decree dtd. 29/3/12 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Chittorgarh in Appeal No. 12/11, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the villagers of the village Kharmaliya, Tehsil Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, the respondents no. 3/1 to 3/18 herein, submitted an application under Rule 14(4) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules of 1970") for cancellation of allotment of land comprising Arazi no. 680/946 and Arazi no. 680 made by the Allotment Advisory Committee in favour of the petitioners herein. The villagers claimed that land allotted in favour of the petitioners form part of the pasture land and therefore, same was not available for allotment under the Rules. The application preferred was rejected by the District Collector, Pratapgarh vide order dtd. 27/12/10 observing that at the time of settlement, the disputed land was recorded as bilanam and was in long possession of the petitioners herein and therefore, the allotment made in favour of the petitioners cannot be faulted with. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector, Pratapgarh as aforesaid, the respondents no. 3/1 to 3/18 preferred an appeal before the RAA, Chittorgarh. After due consideration of the rival submissions and the material on record, the RAA arrived at the finding that the disputed land is recorded as pasture land since the year 1965 and the allotment of the pasture land being prohibited under the law, the same could not have been allotted in favour of the petitioners herein. Accordingly, vide order dtd. 29/3/12, the allotment made in favour of the petitioners was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the second appeal preferred by the petitioners herein also stands dismissed by the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the findings arrived at by the Board of Revenue on the basis of inadmissible evidence and ignoring the material on record is ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners could not have been cancelled by the RAA after a lapse of about 5 years. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question is classified and recorded as bilanam in the revenue record and thus, without there being any justifiable basis, the finding arrived at by the RAA, affirmed by the Board of Revenue that the disputed land forms part of the pasturage is absolutely erroneous.