CW– 4338/06– Sh. Sahi Ram & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. : Judgment dt.12.5.08 1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Shri Sahi Ram & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4338/2006 under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment : 12th May, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. G.J. Gupta ) for the petitioners. Mr. Arjun Singh) Mr. S.L. Jain ) for the respondents. Mr. S.G. Ojha) --------- BY THE COURT:- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue Annex.1 dated 22.6.2006. By the said order, the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue allowed the appeal filed by the appellant Kewal Krishan and others and set aside the order of CW– 4338/06– Sh. Sahi Ram & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. : Judgment dt.12.5.08 2/6 learned Revenue Appellate Authority Hanumangarh dated 22.2.2005 and restored the orders of the Addl. Collector, Hanumangarh dated 8.3.2004 and 11.3.2004. 3. The petitioners Sahi Ram and Kasi Ram, who originally transferred the land in question to one Duli Chand by a sale deed dated 12.2.1970 through Power of Attorney Mr. Roopa Ram have been agitating the regularization of the said sale in favour of the respondents Shri Kewal Krishna, Devraj, Sita Ram and Raj Kumar on the ground that the learned Addl. Collector could not have regularized the said sale under the provisions of Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 in favour of these respondents on the basis of application Annex.3 on record dated 12.10.1984. The learned Addl. Collector passed the said regularization order vide Annex.6 dated 8.3.2004 which was however, set aside by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority by the order dated 22.2.2005. The said order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 22.2.2005 was set aside by the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 22.6.2006 and being aggrieved, the present petitioners Kasi Ram and Sahi Ram have approached this Court by way of present writ petition. CW– 4338/06– Sh. Sahi Ram & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. : Judgment dt.12.5.08 3/6 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. G.J. Gupta urged that the said regularization order in favour of the respondent was bad in law as the application Annex.3 was not in prescribed form prescribed under the Rajasthan Colonization (General Colony) Conditions , 1955 as the respondents were not bonafide resident of Rajasthan, they were not eligible to purchase the said land. He referred to condition No.30 and prescribed form-II under condition No.19 of the said Conditions, 1955. He also submitted that the said application was signed only by one person Devraj though the names of all the four persons were given in the said application. 5. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents on the side opposite submitted that on earlier occasion also the present petitioners had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1987/1985 which came to be dismissed by this Court on July 7, 2000 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the Court found that power of attorney holder of the present petitioners Mr. Rupa Ram, the respondent No.6 could execute the sale deed in favour of the Duli Chand, the predecessor-in-title of the present four respondents. This Court also observed that after the amendment in law Section 13 of the CW– 4338/06– Sh. Sahi Ram & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. : Judgment dt.12.5.08 4/6 Colonization Act had been diluted and thus, even now the contesting respondents can get the sale deed regularized in view of the provisions of Section 13A of the Act. Thus, in pursuance of remand order of the Board of Revenue Annex.2 dated 21.5.1985, the learned Addl. Collector considering the application Annex.3 dated 12.10.1984 regularized the said sale in favour of the transferee Duli Chand and present four respondents by the order dated 8.3.2004 Annex.6. 6. I have heard learned counsels and perused the relevant provisions and record of the case. Section 13 A of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13 which provided for certain transfer or sub-lease made by the tenant be void, which sales could be regularized under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonization Act upon application in the prescribed form to the Collector. The said provisions provided for regularization upon payment of compounding fees in lump sum or in installments as prescribed in that provision. Sub-section (4) of Section 13 A clearly provides that where compounding fees has been paid in accordance with this Section, no action shall be taken or proceeded further against the purported transferee, sub-lessee or the charge holder and CW– 4338/06– Sh. Sahi Ram & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. : Judgment dt.12.5.08 5/6 no penalty shall be imposed on the tenant in such cases. In the present case, after the remand order of Board of Revenue, the application Annex.3 dated 12.10.1984 was treated to be a pending application before the learned Addl. Collector and upon the said application after hearing the parties concerned, the Addl. Collector passed the regularization order which is Annex.6 on record dated 8.3.2004. It is not in dispute that the present respondents paid the compounding fees in pursuance of the said order of the learned Addl. Collector. 7. Though the said order came to be set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.2.2005 but upon an appeal filed by the present respondents, the Board of Revenue set aside this order and thus, the regularization in favour of the present respondents stood. The challenge laid by the present petitioners before this Court on the ground that the said application was not in prescribed form or that the transferee was not eligible as they are not bonafide residents of Rajasthan are the questions of facts which stood concluded before the authorities below and such question of facts cannot be controverted or rebutted in the present writ petition. The application being not in prescribed form is of no much consequences CW– 4338/06– Sh. Sahi Ram & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. : Judgment dt.12.5.08 6/6 as this is a procedural aspect and once by consent of the parties Anex.3 the application was treated as application pending for consideration by the Additional Collector, this issue cannot be raised before this Court by the present petitioners. 8. In view of this, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order of learned Board of Revenue dated 22.6.2006 and the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.42 babulal/-