1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5677/2007 {State of Rajasthan Versus Manohar Lal & Others} Date of Order :: 17th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Naveen Dhaun for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Naveen Dhuan appears for the contesting respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that land in dispute was allotted by allotment committee to respondent no.1 Manohar Lal way back vide order dated 20th June, 1964 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purpose) Rules. 1957. The State preferred an application under Rule 14(4) of the Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purpose Rules, 1970 in the year 1999 for cancellation of the allotment made in the year 1964. The Additional Collector vide its order dated 29th September, 2001 cancelled the allotment order passed in favour of the respondent no.1. Being 2 aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by allottee before Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed vide judgment dated 17th April, 2002. Being aggrieved with the same, the state preferred second appeal before the Revenue Board but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 16th November, 2006. Being aggrieved with the same, the State Government has preferred this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 was filed for cancellation of allotment order made in the year 1964 as per recommendation of Beri Commission and Additional Collector was pleased to cancel the order of allotment on the basis of the recommendation of the Beri Commission wherein it was observed that the allottee was trespasser over the land in dispute, therefore, by allotting the same land to him an award cannot be awarded to him. He, therefore, contended that order passed by the Additional Collector has wrongly been set-aside by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revenue Board, therefore, both the orders are liable to be set-aside by this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the 3 respondents contended that the land in dispute was allotted to respondent no.1 under the Rules of 1957 and thereafter the said rules were repealed and Rules of 1970 were substituted. The present application under Rule 14 (4) was moved under the Rules of 1970, wherein there is specific rule i.e. Rule 20 relating to allotment of land to trespasser, therefore, the Additional Collector committed an illegality in not considering Rule 20 of the Rules of 1970 while cancelling the order of allotment of land. He further contended that allotment was made in the year 1964, whereas the present application was filed after 33 years i.e. in the year 1999. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board rightly set-aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and Revenue Board, as referred above. Undisputedly the allotment of land was made under the Rules of 1957 vide order dated 20th June, 1964. No application for cancellation of this allotment order was filed immediately by the competent authority. The application was filed only after 4 a delay of 33 years only on the basis of recommendation of Beri Commission to the effect that a person who was trespasser over the land in dispute could not be awarded an award by allotting the same land to him. The Revenue Appellate Authority has considered the reasons assigned by Additional Collector for cancelling the allotment of the disputed land and has observed that allotment was made in the year 1964 and the application has been filed after 33 years for cancellation of it. It is also relevant to mention that allotment of land has been cancelled under the Rules of 1970 whereas there is a specific Rule i.e. Rule 20 under the Rules of 1970 itself for allotment of land to trespasser. The allotment could have been cancelled only on the basis of reasons or grounds as mentioned in the Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. After considering the entire material, I am of the view that learned Additional Collector committed an illegality in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the respondent no.1 in the year 1964. The Revenue Appellate Authority rightly set-aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. The Revenue Board was justified in upholding the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. I do 5 not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board so as to interfere with the same. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Versus Laxmibai R. Tarte and another {AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297} held that the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Versus Mohd. Mustaqim {AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38} held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 6 9. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK