1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5940/2006 (Sher Singh & ors. Vs. Sugan Singh & ors.) Date of Order :: 11th December 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.M.Mridul, Sr.Advocate with Mr.P.S.Chundawat for the petitioners Mr.S.L.Jain for the respondents Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 11.09.2006 as passed by the Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioners nor there appears any justification in the claim as put forward by the petitioners in relation to the land in dispute. The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of Tota Singh whose father Chanan Singh had about 50 bighas of land as temporary cultivation (T.C.) lease holder. After chackbandi, 24.10 bighas of land comprised in Murraba No. 228/435 was allotted to the said Shri Chanan Singh on permanent basis on 27.10.1972 and the remaining was declared as government land as comprised in Murraba No. 229/433 at Chack 3 RBM. It is borne out that on 25.01.1980, out of this 25 bighas of land comprised in Murraba No. 2 229/433, 10.14 bighas of land was allotted to the respondent No. 1 Sugan Singh whereas 10.16 bighas of land was allotted to the respondent No. 3 Chunni Lal. On the other hand, an application made by Shri Tota Singh for allotment of the said land of Murraba No. 229/433 as adult son of T.C. holder Chanan Singh came to be rejected on 15.01.1981. The petitioners’ predecessor Shri Tota Singh challenged the orders of allotment as made in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 in appeals (Nos. 600/1985 and 601/1985) and so also challenged the order passed in rejection of his application by way of another appeal (No. 602/1985) before the Revenne Appellate Authority, Bikaner (‘RAA’ for short). By its order dated 12.12.1985 (Annex.3) as passed in relation to the appeal preferred against the order rejecting his application, the learned RAA ordered remand of the matter with the directions that after due enquiry, if found entitled, the land be allotted to the appellant Tota Singh. Thereafter, by its order dated 09.04.1986 (Annex.4) as passed in relation to the appeals preferred against the said allotment orders, the learned RAA, while agreeing with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant Tota Singh that if found entitled, the land could be allotted to him as adult son of the TC holder, further ordered remand of the matter but with the observations that the application for allotment as moved by the appellant be 3 kept pending in view of general directions of the State Government and the allottees (respondents Nos. 1 and 3 herein) may be allotted alternative land. It appears that after such remand, the Additional Collector, Suratgarh proceeded to pass an order dated 13.10.1998 (Annex.5) directing that as per the directions contained in the remand order, the allottee Sugan Singh should move appropriate application for alternative allotment and the record relating to the application for allotment as made by Tota Singh be requisitioned for the purpose of carrying out necessary enquiry in relation to his entitlement. The order so passed by the Additional Collector was challenged by Sugan Singh in appeal (No. 396/1998) wherein, after noticing all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned RAA, in its order dated dated 15.04.2002 (Annex.6) observed that the entitlement of Tota Singh was very much a question of enquiry and before compliance of the requirements of the remand order dated 12.12.1985, the allotment of Sugan Singh could not have directly been set aside; and, while pointing out the inconsistency in the remand order dated 09.04.1986 as passed later in the other appeals preferred by Tota Singh, the learned RAA observed that before deciding on his entitlement, no further order could have been passed by the Additional Collector in favour of Tota Singh. The learned 4 RAA, therefore, directed that the matter relating to Sugan Singh be decided while complying with the directions contained in the remand order dated 12.12.1985. It appears that in the meantime the applicant Tota Singh expired and his legal representatives, the present petitioners, were substituted in his place. The Additional Collector, Sriganganagar thereafter took up the matter for consideration in terms of the aforesaid order dated 15.04.2002 and found, inter alia, that the land in question was not the surplus land available for allotment to the adult son of T.C. holder; that Tota Singh merely remained in unauthorized possession of the land in question that was already declared a government land; and that Tota Singh and Balwant Singh, sons of Chanan Singh, had already been allotted 25 bighas of land in Murraba No. 227/433 at Chack 3 RBM and another 25 bighas of land at Chack 6A. The learned Additional Collector, by his order dated 05.08.2005 (Annex.7), therefore, directed delivery of possession of 10.14 bighas of land in Murraba No. 229/433 to Sugan Singh after dispossessing the unauthorized occupant. The order so passed by the Additional Collector was affirmed by the RAA while dismissing the appeal taken by the petitioners by the order dated 12.12.2005 (Annex.8). The revision petition preferred by the petitioners against 5 the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2005 has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer by its order dated 11.09.2006 (Annex. 9). The facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons for non-interference have amply been stated by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order that could usefully be reproduced as under:- ''(1) That having respectfully perused the authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court it is clear that they are not applicable in this case because as per the finding of the lower courts, the disputed land is not surplus land of the T.C. holder, as the temporary allotment was canceled. As such disputed land is not a surplus land as claimed. (2) Shri Chanan Singh had already been allotted 24.10 bighas of muraba no.228/435 of which he was the T.C. holder. Land of muraba no.229/433 was not the surplus land of Chanan Singh because the T.C. allotment had already been canceled in the year 1979 and the land was recorded as government land. As such Chanan Singh or his adult sons can have no claim over the disputed land. (3) Impugned order of learned Addl. Collector and Revenue Appellate Authority are concurrent on the finding of facts and there is no reason for interference at our level in this matter. There is no error of jurisdiction and no grounds on the basis of legality or property which can warrant interference by this bench. (4) On the ground of equity, the petitioners have no claim because both the applicants Tota Singh and Jalwant Singh, sons of Chanan Singh had already been allotted 25 bighas of land each and in that situation they cannot supersede the priority of other deserving claimants. Sufficient land has been allotted to two petitioners as mentioned above and it has no where been mentioned that any application of the other petitioners was pending during the period when the disputed land was allotted to the non- petitioners no. 1 and 2. In that situation there is 6 no case of the petitioners for any justified claim against non-petitioners no.1 and 2. (5) The claim of the petitioners indicates greed and it is not a matter of need. As such there are no grounds for interference at this level. (6) Trespassers have to be discouraged so that law abiding poor citizens can get their due share in the welfare activities of the State.” The factual position as available on record makes it absolutely clear that the petitioners who were seeking to put forward a claim on the basis of themselves being the heirs and legal representatives of Tota Singh, do not appear to be having any legal right in relation to the land in dispute comprised in Murraba No.229/433 and in any case, the considerations of equity operate squarely against them. The finding that Tota Singh and Balwant Singh, sons of Chanan Singh, had already been allotted 25 bighas of land each, has not as such been questioned in this writ petition but it is suggested that so far the petitioner Sher Singh (son of Tota Singh) is concerned, the land given to him is comprised of 8 bighas of command land and 17 biswas of uncommand land and thus it is contended that counting two bighas of uncommand land as equal to one bigha of command land, the petitioner would be having only 16.5 bighas of land. The submission has hardly of any relevance so far the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned particularly when it is noticed that though Chanan Singh, grand father of petitioner No. 1, 7 was T.C. Holder of 50 bighas of land but later, the land comprised in Murraba No. 229/433 was declared government land; and 24.10 bighas land of Murraba No.228/435 was indeed allotted to him on permanent basis; and then, his sons Tota Singh and Balwant Singh were allotted 25 bighas of land each. Though it is suggested in the writ petition that the earlier orders dated 12.12.1985 and 09.04.1986 had attained finality and nothing contrary to them could have been ordered but then, a bare look at the order dated 12.12.1985 makes it clear that the application of the applicant Tota Singh was remanded for reconsideration to examine his entitlement for the allotment as claimed. Pending such examination and enquiry, it could not have been assumed that allotment to Sugan Singh and Chunni Lal was required to be cancelled. The learned RAA seems to have correctly taken into comprehension all the facts and circumstances of the case in its order dated 15.04.2002, and the observations therein remain unexceptionable. The orders subsequently passed by the concerning authorities do also appear to have been passed in correct appreciation of the facts of the case and the law applicable. This Court is satisfied that the Board of Revenue has not committed any error of jurisdiction leading to any injustice and rather, the Board of Revenue has rightly observed that 8 claim of the petitioners is indicative of their greed and not a matter of need. The allotments as made in favour of landless persons like the respondents Nos.1 and 3 do not appear suffering from any illegality; and the impugned order as passed by the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference. This writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK