JAS RAJ Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was in Railway's service as class IV servant and also retired from service since long. In 1971 he was allotted 25 bighas of agricultural land on temporary cultivation basis. Later on, in 1974 he was permanently allotted the land. It is not in dispute that when the land was allotted to him he was a landless person. He cultivated the land and nourished the same for so many years. However, after a lapse of almost 15 years of allotment, the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chattargarh ordered enquiry on a complaint received by him to the effect that when the land was allotted to him he was in Govt. service, which fact was not disclosed by him. The petitioner filed a reply and pointed out that he had a large family of 9 members and his monthly income was hardly Rs. 185/ -, therefore, he applied for land which was allotted to him in 1971. Bonafidely, he was under the impression that he was not required to disclose the fact that he was in service, therefore, he did not disclose the fact when the land in question was allotted to him. However, by an impugned order dated 3.6.87 the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The same was challenged in appeal before the Addl. Colonisation Commissioner -Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, but the same was dismissed on 7.1.1994 (Annex. 2). The petitioner challenged the said order by way of revision before the Board of Revenue but this revision petition was also dismissed on 28.7.98 (Annex. 3). Aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Singhal for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was absolutely poor person when he was allotted land. He was totally illiterate, therefore, not aware about the fact that he was required to disclose the fact that he was in service when the land in question was temporarily allotted to him and later on allotted on permanent basis. He submitted that when the land allotted to him the monthly income of the petitioner was only Rs. 185/ - out of which he had to maintain 9 family members. Thus, practically he had no income as such to maintain his large family. He submitted that if the land was not allotted to him he would not have maintained his family members and some of them would have perhaps died because of starvation. He, therefore, submitted that he had not committed such a grave sin which calls for cancellation of land which was allotted to him way back in 1971. He further submitted that the powers of cancellation cannot be exercised after a gross delay of as many as 15 years. He also submitted that now the petitioner is no more in service and if today the land in question is not kept with the petitioner then his entire family would starve. In support of his submission he has also relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal v. State reported in : AIR1994SC1128 , wherein, the Apex Court has held that -

(3.) IN Gopi Ram's case (supra) learned Single Judge of this Court held that non -discloser of such fact may not amount to misrepresentation and cancellation of allotment after unreasonable long period was not proper.