1 Preetam Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. (D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.121/2009) Date of Order :: 25.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. B.N. Kalla, for the appellant. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner, the appellant herein against the order dated 18.4.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer in revision(colonisation) petition no.956/2000, and the order dated 24.9.2007 passed in review petition no.4608/2006, has been dismissed. 3. The respondents no.5 to 8 made an application before the Tehsildar (Revenue), Hanumangarh for allotment of 3 bighas land i.e. 10 biswas in kila no.4, 10 biswas in kila no.6 and 1 bigha in kila no.7 and 1 bigha in kila no.13, comprising chak no.18HMH stone no.130/271 as small patch of land under Rule 17A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakhra Project) Allotment & Sale of Government Land (Amended) Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules of 1955' hereinafter). The Tehsildar (Revenue), Hanumangarh vide letter dated 28.4.79 recommended for allotment of the land in favour of the respondents no.5 to 8. In the 2 meantime on 28.1.80, the appellant herein preferred an application before the Tehsildar, Hanumangarh for allotment of 2 bighas land i.e. 10 biswas in kila no.4, 10 biswas in kila no.6 and 1 bigha in kila no.7, chak no.18HMH stone no.271. The allotment of 2 bighas of land as aforesaid was claimed by the appellant on the ground that 2 bighas land allotted to him in kila no.19-22 stone no.116/289 stands allotted to Shri Tiloka Ram S/o Shri Kumana Ram. As a matter of fact, the said land had already been allotted in favour of Tiloka Ram S/o Shri Kumana Ram in the year 1962, however, the necessary entries were not made in the revenue record and, therefore, the said land was inadvertently allotted to the appellant herein. On this fact came to the knowledge of the competent authority i.e. the District Collector, Sri Ganganaar, the allotment made in favour of Tiloka Ram was restored vide order dated 19.7.78. Be that as it may, on the application preferred by the appellant dated 28.1.80 on the recommendation of the Tehsildar, Hanumangarh, vide order dated 7.3.81 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh, 2 bighas land regarding which an application preferred by the respondents no.5 to 8 was already pending consideration, was allotted to the appellant. However, when the fact regarding the pendency of the application of the respondents no.5 to 8 for the allotment of the land in question came to the notice of the District Collector, Hanumangarh the allotment order issued in favour of the appellant was stayed vide order 3 dated 13.3.81. Ultimately, after due consideration, vide order dated 30.8.84 passed by the District Collector, Hanumangarh, the allotment made in favour of the appellant of the land in question was cancelled. 4. Aggrieved by the cancellation order dated 30.8.84, the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.8.86. However, a revision petition preferred by the appellant against the said order dated 20.11.86 was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.5.87 and the matter was remanded to the District Collector, Hanumangarh to ascertain as to whether the respondents no.5 to 8 herein holds the land in excess of the ceiling limit and thereafter to decide the matter afresh. 5. After remand as aforesaid, the land in question was allotted by the Additional District Collector, Hanumangarh to the respondents no.5 to 8 as small patch land vide order dated 28.3.94, aggrieved by which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.2.2000. On further appeal the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.4.2006. A petition for review of the order dated 18.4.2006 filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.9.2007. In these circumstances, the validity of the orders dated 18.4.06 and 24.9.07 passed by the Board of Revenue was 4 assailed by the appellant by way of writ petition before this Court. 6. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant holding that the concurrent finding of all the courts below with regard to allotment made in favour of the respondents no.5 to 8 does not require any interference. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the cancellation of his allotment of 2 bighas land in favour of the appellant in view of pre existing allotment in favour of Tiloka Ram, the appellant was entitled for allotment in lieu thereof and after due consideration, the allotment having made in his favour, the same could not have been cancelled by the allotting authority. 8. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the date on which the appellant made application for allotment of the land in question, the application preferred by the respondents no.5 to 8 for allotment of the self same land as small patch was pending consideration before the competent authority and the allotment in favour of the appellant vide order dated 7.3.81 was made by the authority concerned in ignorance of the fact that the application preferred by the respondents no.5 to 8 for allotment of the land as small patch is already pending. It is also not disputed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that under the Rules of 1955, the respondents no.5 to 8 were entitled for 5 preferential allotment of the land in question as small patch. Therefore, in our view, the cancellation of allotment of the land in question made in favour of the appellant inadvertently and the preferential allotment thereof in favour of the respondents no.5 to 8 cannot be faulted with. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the concurrent finding arrived at by the courts below. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the special appeal lacks merits, and the same is hereby dismissed. [SANGEET LODHA],J. [A.M. KAPADIA],J. vijayant