URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 1 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) Dated: 28th April,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. B.R.Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Sharma for respondents nos.1/1 to 1/9. None present for the respondents no. 2 to 10. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 30.12.02 of the Board of Revenue,Rajasthan, whereby the revision petition preferred by the L.Rs. of Shri Kheta Ram, the respondents no. 1/1 to 1/9 herein against the State of Rajasthan has been allowed, the order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer, Bikaner has been set aside and the mutation of the land in question made in their favour vide order dated 18.4.91 , has been restored. The petitioner has also challenged validity of order dated 15.7.03 of the Board of Revenue rejecting the review petition preferred by the petitioner for review of aforesaid order dated 30.12.02. The petitioner is aggrieved by these orders inasmuch as, inter alia the land in question is included in urban area of Bikaner vide notification dated 16.6.76 and accordingly, the same stands vested in the petitioner . 2. The brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that Shri Kheta Ram(since deceased) applied for temporary allotment of the lands in village Nathusar, Tehsil Bikaner in the year 1976- URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 2 77 under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonisation (Temporary Cultivation Leases) Conditions, 1955. He was allotted 10 bighas of uncommand land in Khasra No. 51 in Village Nathusar on temporary cultivation basis in the year 1976. Thereafter, he was allotted 20 bighas and 18 biswas of uncommand land in Khasra No. 51 in the year 1978. The allotments made in his favour were renewed from year to year till 1985. When the temporary cultivation lease was made in favour of the Shri Kheta Ram, the lands in question were in colony area however, subsequently, when some villages were de-colonised and khatedari rights were recognised in favour of the temporary allottees of the said villages, if they had completed ten years as a tenant . Firstly, the said principle was applied in respect of 27 villages in Lunkaransar but later on, 50 villages of Bikaner Tehsil which included Nathusar were also de-colonised and the same principle was applied thereto. In these circumstances, Shri Kheta Ram claimed khatedari rights in respect of the lands under his temporary cultivation . The Assistant Settlement Officer recognising khatedari rights of Shri Khetaram vide order dated 18.4.91 mutated the land in his favour. 3. The petitioner made an attempt to construct roads through the said land without acquiring the same in accordance with law. In these circumstances, Shri Kheta Ram preferred a writ petition URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 3 No. 3307/91 before this court. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition , the Settlement Officer passed an order dated 28.3.95 setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 18.4.91 recognising the khatedari rights in favour of Shri Kheta Ram and consequently, the mutation made in his favour was also cancelled. 4. Against the order dated 28.3.95 passed by the Settlement Officer, Bikaner, the respondent no.1 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 2.7.99 and the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer with a direction to pass a fresh order. On remand, the Settlement Officer vide order dated 26.7.2000 set aside the order dated 18.4.91 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer holding it as void ab initio. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.7.2000 , the respondent no. 1 again approached Board of Revenue through revision petition No.116/2000 wherein by way of interim relief , the operation of the order of Settlement Officer dated 26.7.2000 was stayed by the Board of Revenue on 1.8.2000. 6. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the order of Settlement Officer dated 28.3.95 , a reference made by the Assistant Settlement Officer u/s 82 of Rajasthan Land URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 4 Revenue Act, 1956 regarding the alleged illegal mutation of the land in question in favour of the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 18.4.91 , was decided by the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 27.12.97 wherein it was held that order dated 28.3.95 passed by the Settlement Officer referred to in the reference application is of no consequence so far as the mutation no. 29 dated 18.4.91 effected in favour of the respondent no. 1 is concerned. 7. During the pedency of writ petition No. 3307/91 , the respondent no.1 apprehending that petitioner UIT is considering transfer of the land to third parties , filed yet another writ petition No.71/95 with the prayer to prohibit the State of Rajasthan and the petitioner UIT from transferring any part of Khasra no. 51 in question to third parties. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the matter in dispute was pending before the Board of Revenue, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and without deciding the rights of the parties, the aforesaid writ petition (No. 3307/91) preferred by the respondent Kheta Ram represented by his L.Rs. the respondent no.1 herein was disposed of by this court in the following terms :- “(1) That the petitioners would not be dispossessed from the land in question by the respondents without adopting the due process of law. (2) That it is however made clear that if any order is URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 5 passed by the Revenue Authorities or Government in favour of the respondent no. 2 Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner and against the petitioners, then this order would not come in their way meaning thereby the respondents shall be free to comply with the orders passed against the petitioners. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” 9. In writ petition No. 71/95 preferred by the respondent no.1, M/s Kothari Foundation , respondent no. 10 herein, moved an application for being impleaded as party respondent claiming himself to be allottee of 328 x 800 sq. ft. of land. However, the application was rejected by the learned Single Judge noticing the fact that the land alloted to M/s Kothari Foundation does not fall in Khasra No. 51 of village Nathusar therefore, it cannot be considered to be person interested in lis between the parties to the writ petition. The writ petition No. 71/95 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this court vide judgment dated 10.7.02 in terms of judgment dated 17.5.02 passed in writ petition No. 3307/91 (supra). 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.7.02 the UIT as well as M/s Kothari Foundation filed two separate appeals before this court. The appeals were dismissed by a Bench of this court vide judgment dated 18.2.03 keeping in view that the subject matter is subjudice before the Board of Revenue and the rights of the parties to hold land fully depend on final outcome of the decision in the proceedings pertaining to khatedari interest of URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 6 the petitioner. While dismissing the special appeals as aforesaid, the Bench observed that notwithstanding that the petitioner UIT and M/s Kothari Foundation are not parties before the Board of Revenue , they shall be as much bound by the said judgment as State of Rajasthan, as person claiming through State. 11. At this stage, the petitioner UIT so also M/s Kothari Foundation preferred separate applications before the Board of Revenue in revision petition No. 116/2000 pending before it . 12. By the order impugned dated 30.12.2002, the Board of Revenue has rejected both the applications preferred by the petitioner UIT and M/s Kothari Foundation holding that they are not the persons interested in the lis. By the self same order, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been allowed and the order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Bikaner has been set aside and accordingly, the mutation of the land effected in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Settlement Officer vide order dated 18.4.91 has been restored. A review petition preferred by the petitioner UIT for review of the order dated 30.12.02 also stands dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order impugned dated 15.7.03. Hence this petition. 13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain villages falling in colonisation area were de- URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 7 colonised by the State Government vide notification dated 16.6.76 which include the village Nathusar therefore, the allotment of the land in question made in favour of the respondent no. 1 was ex facie without jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that the village Nathusar having been de- colonised , the urban lands in question stand vested in the petitioner UIT therefore, it was a necessary party in the matter and the Board of Revenue has erred in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner UIT for impleading it as party respondent in the revision petition preferred by the respondent no.1. 14. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid factual position emerging from record, no vested right is created in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the order dated 18.4.91 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The learned counsel submitted that the lands in question vest in the petitioner UIT and it has right to deal with it inasmuch as, the same stand transferred to it and ceased to be the lands which could be dealt with under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1/1 to 1/9 submitted that the petitioner UIT is claiming through the State of Rajasthan and therefore, the URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 8 learned Board of Revenue has committed no error in holding that the petitioner UIT cannot be treated to be a party interested in the lis and therefore, cannot be impleaded as party to the proceedings. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner UIT has no locus to assail the validity of the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue on merits. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even on merits the petitioner has no case inasmuch as, the order dated 27.12.97 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan having attained finality , the khatedari rights granted in favour of the respondent no.1 stands confirmed and therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any error warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner UIT is claiming the rights in the lands in question through the State of Rajasthan. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner UIT cannot claim any right independent of the rights flowing from the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, in considered opinion of this court, the learned Board of Revenue has committed no error URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 9 in holding that the petitioner UIT cannot be considered to be a person interested in the lis . Moreover, this question already stands settled by a Bench of this court vide order dated 18.2.03 referred supra, wherein it has been held that inter alia the UIT is not party before the Board of Revenue , it shall be much bound by the said judgment as State of Rajasthan, as person claiming through State. In this view of the matter, the petitioner UIT had no right to inter meddle in the lis pending before the Board of Revenue between the respondent no. 1 and the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, the order impugned rejecting the application preferred by the UIT to implead it as party respondent in the matter does not suffer from any error warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. It is not disputed before this court that by order dated 27.12.97 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan rejecting the reference made u/s 82 of the Act of 1956, the order dated 28.3.95 passed by the Settlement Officer so far as it relates to mutation of the land in question in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 18.4.91 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer has been held to be ineffective and accordingly,the khatedari rights in the lands in question granted URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS. L.RS. OF LATE SHRI KHETA RAM & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1348/04) 10 in favour of the petitioner stands confirmed. It is also not in dispute that the said order has attained finality. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this court, the Board of Revenue has committed no error in setting aside the order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Bikaner in pursuance of remand order dated 2.7.99 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision petition no. 31/95. That apart, a perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner UIT reveals that as per the relevant record the land comprising khasra no. 51 in Village Nathusar was never acquired by or transferred to the petitioner UIT. Thus, viewed from any angle the orders impugned passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this court. 19. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.