GHASI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 Ghashi Ram was the Sarpanch and father of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 has married to Ganga Ram. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sosar Bai allotted land of 10 Bighas and 9 Biswas in Khasra No. 1036/58 of village Ghati on 30-5-1968, Petitioner No. 1 was allotted land of 16 Biswas in Khasra No. 1468/1286 of village Gram Sadri on 6-1-1975 and Ganga Ram, husband of the petitioner No. 2 and son-in-law of petitioner No. 1. Sarpanch was allotted 7 Biswas land in Khasra No.129 of village Madri on 20-9-1976. The allotment made to all these three three persons belonging to one family on different dates in different villages and for different land, was cancelled by the District Collector. Raj Samand by his order dated 28-6-1995 (Annexure 5) in exercise of his powers under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, "The Rules") on the ground that Ghshi Ram, petitioner No. 1 in his capacity as a Sarpanch, not only got the allotment of land in his favour but also in favour of his daughter and his son-in-law by taking part in the Advisory Committee for the allotment of land on all three different occasions.

(2.) It appears from the Impugned order of cancellation dated 28-6-1995 passed by the learned District Collector, Raj Samand (Annex. 3) that this came to the notice of Beri Commission headed by Hon'ble retired Chief Justice Shri B.P. Beri of this Court. Against the impugned order of cancellation of Annex. 3. all the three persons Ghasi Ram, Ganga Ram and Smt. Sosar Bai filed a joint appeal No. 166/95 before the R.A.A. Udaipur, which was dismissed on 19-3-1996 (Annexure 4) on the ground that all the three appeals ought to have filed separate appeals against the order of cancellation, though the order of cancellation was the common but it was passed in relation to the different lands allotted to all the three appellants. On merits also, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that under Rule 13 of Rules of 1970, the petitioner was not entitled to participate in the Advisory Committee for the allotment. It is also found that the appellant No. 1 Sarpanch had already lot of land and he was not a landless person. It also found that appellant No. 2 Ganga Ram son-in-law of Sarpanch present petitioner No. 1, was residing at some other village and without disclosing all these facts, the Sarpanch got the land allotted to his son-in-law. Similarly , appellant No. 3 Sosar Bai, who was the daughter of appellant No. 1 Sarpanch and wife of Ganga Ram, appellant No. 2, cannot be said to be landless because her father had already lot of land. Thus, all the three appellants belonging to one family got the land allotted at different places in different years under the class of the then Sarpanch, Gashi Ram present petitioner No. 1, which is illegal and against the Rules.

(3.) Aggrieved of the order of at Annex. 4 passed by R.A.A. dismissing the common appeal filed by the appellants, all the three appellants filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was also came to be dismissed on 9-6-1997 (Annex. 6) by the Board of Revenue. In para 6 of its judgment, the Board of Revenue has clearly observed that Ghashi Ram, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, who was present in all the three meetings and got the land allotted for himself, for his daughter and for son-in-law, which is not befitting a person who was Sarpanch. Report of Beri Commission also shows that such allotment was against the Rules and ought not to have been made. Board of Revenue also rejected the submission that within 2-1/2 years, Lagan was also deposited at 2-/12 times on which they got the Khatedara rights. Therefore, their allotment cannot be cancelled. Such argument cannot be accepted because when Sarpanch himself does like this then what a common man will expect? The Board of Revenue has gone to that extent by saying that if such error apparent was brought to its notice then the Board of Revenue itself would have exercised its powers under Section 9 of the Land Revenue Act and cancel such allotment. The Board of Revenue also rejected the contention that the cancellation order was passed in absence of the appellants because they deliberately did not remain present at the time of cancellation. These orders at Annexures 3, 4 and 6 passed by the Collector, Rajasmand. R.A.A. and Board of Revenue respectively have been challenged by the petitioner in this present petition, which is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel Ms. Borana for the petitioners vehemently submitted that before passing the impugned order (Annex. 3) dated 28-6-1995, the petitioners were not heard by the District Collector, Rajsamand, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It may be stated that out of three only present two petitioners viz., Ghashi Ram petitioner No. 1, who was Sarpanch and his daughter Smt. Sosar Bai petitioner No. 2, only have filed this petition whereas Ganga Ram, husband of petitioner No. 2 is son-in-law of petitioner No. 1 has not filed any petition against the impugned orders Annexures 3, 4 and 6 passed by the District Collector, R.A.A. and Board of Revenue respectively. From para No. 6 of the order of the Board of Revenue, it is clear that though served with the notice, deliberately, they have not remained present before the Collector , therefore, the ex parte order was passed. Hence, this submission of Ms. Boarana deserves to be rejected and it is rejected.