1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Dayal Singh VS. Board of Revenue & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3722/95 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of order : 27th July, 2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA Mr. Sudheer Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Singhvi for the respondents. Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, Dy. Government Advocate. ------- BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the authorities under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 Annex.4, 5 and 6 relating to cancellation of land allotted to him vide order dated 16.8.1984 in accordance with the Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakhra Project Government Land, Allotment an Sale) Rules, 1955. The 2 petitioner and his brother Balveer Singh both sons of Bahadur Singh @ Bhadar Singh were allotted a small patch of land each at the rate of Rs.1400/- per bigha by separate orders. The allotment made in favour of the petitioner was 5 bighas of land (1.265 hector). Apart from the land allotted to present petitioner, like measured land in the like circumstances was allotted to the petitioner's brother Balveer Singh also. The order of allotment does not show whether the land was allotted in favour of petitioner as a landless person or otherwise. Be that as it may, after the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, a complaint was lodged by one Pritam Singh alleging that allotment has been obtained by the petitioner by concealing material facts about holdings of land by him which originally stood in the name of his father Bahadur Singh at Punjab and Nohar. According to Pritam Singh's assertion, his father Bahadur Singh had 52 bihas 10 biswas of irrigated land in village Ghumaya, Punjab, had also acquired 15 bighas of land in Tehsil Nohar. 3 Finding that the aforesaid land originally stood in the name of Bahadur Singh, who had died prior to 1977 and the land has been mutated in the name of heirs of said Bahadur Singh, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar vide his order dated 3.8.1989. This order was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on appeal vide his order dated 11.10.1990. The Revenue Appellate Authority found that land held in the name of his father at village Ghumaya was not 52 bighas but was 52 kennel which was equal to only 11 bighas of land and there were 7 heirs of the deceased father of the petitioner. As a result of succession, the petitioner got only 1 bighas 10 biswas of land out of his father's land. Similarly out of 15 bighas of land allotted to the petitioner's father at Nohar, on his death each of the 7 heirs secured only 2 bighas 2 biswas land and, therefore, after taking into consideration both the lands held by the petitioner, he still falls in the category of landless person and eligible to acquire additional land until his holding exceeded 25 4 bighas of land. However, the fact that the petitioner continues to be a landless person even by taking into consideration the land standing in his name was considered to be a little consequence since his father was not domiciled resident of Rajasthan. In this order, it was also doubted whether the petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan. This above order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 11.10.1990 was affirmed by the Board of Revenue not interfering in the second appeal preferred before it vide order dated 22.8.1995. Here it may be noticed that the complaint against petitioner's brother Balveer Singh by said Preetam Singh has also proceeded on identical lines and has resulted in same consequences. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, two separate writ petitions were filed one by Balveer Singh and another by present petitioner. The petitioner contends that since his eligibility is not in doubt even 5 after taking the holdings standing in the name of his father which fell to his share and the entire allotment was within the permissible limit under the Rules of 1955, the allotment made in his favour was not liable to be cancelled. He relied on a Bench decision of this Court in Makhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1992 Vol. (1) RLW page 1. He also relies on decision dt.18.4.2006 passed in writ petition filed by Balver Singh's by which the said writ petition was allowed. The respondents No.6 and 7 are persons in whose favour the land in question was allotted prior to allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The possession of said land, according to the said respondents, was taken by the Collector in Revenue Camps without any notice and without considering the existing rights of the said respondents under allotment made in their favour. Therefore, that action of the Collector was not lawful and became subject matter of the writ petition No.626/1977 which was allowed by this Court on 24.8.1978. 6 In pursuance of said order the respondents No.6 and 7 made an application for restoration of the possession of the land in question. That application moved by the respondents was kept pended before the Collector for carrying on proceeding for cancelling allotment made in favour of Savitri Devi. Ultimately the proceeding for cancellation of allotment was dropped after the land was already stood allotted in favour of the present petitioner. After dropping of the proceedings for cancelling the allotment made in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi back in 1977 another application was moved by the said respondents before the Collector on 14.2.1986. At the relevant time, the land in question was in possession of Government and some other persons about which eviction proceedings were initiated. According to the respondents No.6 and 7, they have the right to remain in possession of the land since in 1969 the land has been allotted to them by way of compensation in lieu of their land acquired by the State Government prior to 1969. These facts have not been controverted by the petitioner. 7 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the question of petitioner having obtained the land in question by not disclosing the land held by him at the time of making of application and his eligibility to secure the land from the State Government under the Rules of 1955 looses its significance because if in respect of the land in question there was pre existing right in favour of Savitri Devi and another the respondents No.6 and 7, said land in question was not available for allotment to the petitioner in 1984. The right of the respondents No.6 and 7 having been recognised way back in 1969 and they were put in possession in 1969 as a part of compensation awarded to persons whose lands have been acquired and subsequent dispossession was found to be invalid by this Court, the right accrued in favour of the respondents No.6 and 7 in 1969 cannot be destroyed by subsequent proceedings having taken place in ignorance of said previous proceedings. In the like circumstances, S.B. Civil Writ 8 Petition No.1319/1996 (Surender Singh Vs. State of Raj) was filed before this Court relating to another part of land allotted to Smt. Savitri Devi vis-a-vis the part of that very land was allotted in favour of Surender Singh also on 16.8.1984. I have also considered Balveer Singh's case and I find that in case of Balveer Singh, no claim of third party on the basis of pre existing rights was before the Court for consideration and therefore, the facts and circumstances of Balveer Singh's case are entirely different and cannot be made applicable to the present case. As a result of aforesaid discussion, it being amply established on record that there exists prior right in favour of respondents No.6 and 7 in respect of the land which came to be allotted in favour of the petitioner only on 16.8.1984, when the allotment could not have been made in favour of the petitioner the petition must fail on that ground alone. 9 Accordingly. this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/