HANS RAJ Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in these petitions are brothers end since the main points urged arc common to all of them, we propose to dispose them of by a single order.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that 25 Bighas of land situate in 11 S. B. D. was allotted to each of the petitioners in the year 1959 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Temporary Cultivation (Leases Conditions) Act, 1955 and subsequently, on the application by the petitioners, the land in question was allotted to the petitioners permanently on December 16, 1972, However, the allotting authority, having come to know that the petitioners had got land allotted in their favour by making incorrect statement of facts, cancelled the allotment on January 8, 1975. Aggrieved by the orders of cancellation, the petitioners filed appeals and the appellate authority, by its order dated December 29, 1976, remanded the case to the allotting authority for deciding the matter afresh in the light of the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation Allotment (Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1975, which will hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rules of 1975". Again, the allotting authority, by its order dated March 23, 1970 (Ex. 1) cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners again filed appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority-cum-Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner, who, by his order dated December 29, 1976 (Ex. 2) dismissed the petitioners' appeals and upheld the order of the allotting authority. Dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority, tbe petitioners filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, but the revisions were also dismissed by the orders dated June 21, 1978 and February 1, 1977 (Ex. 3). In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions praying that the orders passed by the allotting authority as well as by the appellate authority and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan be set aside and the allotment made in favour of the petitioners be declared legal and valid.

(3.) It appears that on January 2S, 1979, Shri M. D. Purohit, Additional Government Advocate, put in appearance on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even though there was no order for issue of notice and this is how Shri Shishodia, Government Advocate, has put in appearance before us today also, to oppose the admission of these petitions. He has raised two preliminary objections. It is submitted by him, in the first instance, that Writ Petitions Nos. 898 and 899 of 1978 are inordinately delayed inasmuch as the matter was decided by the Revenue Board on February 1, 1977 and these writ petitions have been filed as late as on December 15, 1978, The other preliminary objection is that only one point was argued before the Board of Revenue, namely, that under 1971 Rules, there was a provision, namely, Rule 16, enabling the allotting authority to cancel the allotment, but no such provision exists in 1975 Rules. It is submitted that all other points having been given up before the Board of Revenue, the petitioners are not entitled to urge these points in a petition under Article 226. Here, we may state that since these preliminary objections are not applicable to the case of Om Prakash (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 900 of 1978), we shall deal with it separately even though one set of arguments was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of all the three writ petitions.