1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1556/2003 (Bhikh Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 9.4.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. P.S. Rathore, for the petitioners. Dy. Government Advocate for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioners were admittedly allotted 500 sq. yards of land free of cost temporary for the purpose of 'bada' for the use of collecting the fodder and other necessary things for animal grazing. They were given notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) because they raised construction over the said land. Upon notice sent under Section 91 of the Act, a reply was filed by the petitioners. However, the Tehsildar while rejecting the reply filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners has made breach of conditions of allotment order, passed an order for their eviction. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before Collector, which was also rejected vide order dated 9.1.1996. Further, aggrieved with the order dated 9.1.1996 passed by Collector, the petitioners preferred second appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, that too, was dismissed. 2 Further, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 2.1.2003 rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners and affirmed the concurrent findings of all the revenue courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the proceedings are illegal. The petitioners are in possession of the land and the learned revenue courts below have misdirected themselves while giving finding on dispute effective in summary proceedings under Section 91 of the Act. The petitioners have not violated any of the conditions of the allotment order. The land was initially allotted to them for storing fodder for cattle and they are using the same for the very same purpose. Therefore, the revenue courts have failed to consider this aspect of the matter and illegally rejected the claim of the petitioners, which is totally erroneous. Learned Dy. Government Advocate while filing the reply to the writ petition, contended that Tehsildar concerned has got no right to make such type of allotment in view of the provisions of Section 88 of the Act. Likewise, the land in question was temporarily allotment for collecting fodder under the specific terms and conditions and not otherwise as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioners themselves 3 have contravened the conditions of temporary allotment. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.5.1992 passed by the Tehsildar is perfectly legal order. Further, all the orders passed Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue do not require any interference by this Court because they are based on concurrent findings. It is further submitted that the Tehsildar was not competent under the law to pass the said order of temporary allotment for the purpose of storing fodder, therefore, it was rightly cancelled vide impugned order dated 22.5.1992. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed because all the courts below have given cogent reasons while upholding the order dated 22.5.1992. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding given by courts below. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun