1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3986/2009. Amar Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order :: 30th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT: The allotment of 10 bighas of land in khasra No. 820 min. at village Panta-Ki-Aanti, Tehsil Devgarh, District Rajsamand as made to the petitioner on 29.11.1989 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bheem came to be questioned by the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 by way of an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 ['the Rules of 1970'] on the allegations that the petitioner had remained Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Lasani and then, Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Devgarh and, taking advantage of his position, the petitioner moved an application for allotment of land under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unculturable Waste Land for Development of Private Forest) Rules, 1983 ['the Rules of 1983']; and that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bheem, contrary to the application moved by the petitioner, proceeded to make the allotment of land under the Rules of 1970 for agricultural 2 purposes. The applicants also contended that the land in question was not an unoccupied land as the same was in their possession; that the allotment remained invalid in law for want of requisite proceedings for such allotment; and that the allottee was not a landless person for having 40 bighas and 17 biswas of land at village Lasani. The petitioner, while refuting such contentions, submitted that the land in question was allotted to him in lieu of his 4 biswas of land as comprised in Araji No. 790 at village Lasani that had gone in road. The petitioner also contended that he had agreed to part with his land to the Public Works Department in public interest without any compensation but with the proposition that the land be allotted to him in exchange. It was also contended that the allotment had been made in accordance with law and the allegations as levelled against the petitioner were not correct. It seems appropriate to point out at this stage itself that though the allegations against the petitioner had been of his having moved the application for allotment of land under the aforesaid Rules of 1983 and the application as allegedly moved by the petitioner had, of course, been with reference to the said Rules of 1983 as would appear from the certified copy thereof placed on record as Annexure-6, however, the said 3 application was allegedly moved on 28.10.1987 and so far the Rules of 1983 were concerned, the same had been repealed and substituted by the new Rules i.e., the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unculturable Waste Land for Development of Private Forest) Rules, 1986 with effect from 17.07.1986. As per the assertion of the petitioner, the application Annexure-6 was moved only after 17.07.1986 and, therefore, the matter herein has been examined taking the fact that the said application was made under the aforesaid new Rules that have been referred herein as ‘the Rules of 1986’. The learned Additional Collector while dealing with the aforesaid application moved by the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970, after examining the record of the case and the submissions as made by the parties, was of opinion that for the purpose of allotting the land to the petitioner in lieu of the land having gone in road, appropriate proceedings ought to have adopted in accordance with law. The learned Additional Collector also observed that in fact, the petitioner made the application for allotment of land for development of private forest and it was apparent that the allotment was made without quorum and even without considering that the petitioner was already having 40 bighas and 17 biswas of land. The learned Additional Collector 4 observed that the allotment never specified if it were in lieu of any other land; and found that the same was made specifically under the Rules of 1970 whereas the petitioner was not a landless person and was not eligible for such allotment. The learned Additional Collector, thus, proceeded to set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 23.02.1996 (Annex.10), The petitioner moved a review application before the Additional Collector wherein the submissions were made to the effect that he had earlier mistakenly moved the application for development of private forest but in fact the land was given to him in exchange for his land having gone in road. The learned Additional Collector proceeded to reject the review application by the order dated 31.03.1998 (Annex.11) again disbelieving the case of the petitioner that 10 bighas of land was allotted to him in exchange of 4 biswas of land allegedly taken in road. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the orders so passed by the learned Additional Collector before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer [‘the Board]. It was contended before the Board that the allotment to the petitioner had not been made under the Rules of 1970 and such an allotment could not have been cancelled under Rule 5 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970. According to the petitioner, it were a case of land having been given in exchange and there was no justification to set the same aside. The learned Member of the Board has proceeded to reject the revision petition filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 01.04.2009 (Annex.13) while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner and with the finding that the land in question had in fact been allotted under the Rules of 1970. The learned Member of the Board has observed that the Additional Collector had considered all the submissions as made by the petitioner and had rightly rejected the same; and that there was no cogent reason for interference in revision. Seeking to assail the orders aforesaid, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 23.02.1996 (Annex.10) deserves to be set aside being wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer who had no jurisdiction to deal with an application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970. It is also contended that the petitioner having moved the application under the Rules of 1986 and the allotment having been made thereunder, such an allotment could not have been cancelled under the Rules of 1970. It is submitted that the learned authorities have not examined the record of 6 the case particularly the application as moved by the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner was even otherwise entitled to be allotted the land even under the Rules of 1970 and there had not been any justification in setting aside his allotment. Having considered the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the orders impugned so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. It is noticed that in order to justify the questioned allotment of 10 bighas of land, allegedly made in lieu of 4 biswas of land taken in road, the petitioner has taken rather incongruous stand about the nature of his propositions and the nature of allotment process. Though the petitioner has alleged his 4 biswas of land having gone in road and the land in question having been given in lieu thereof but then, his application dated 23.04.1987 (Annex.1) had only been of his readiness to give up his land without compensation and with the proposition to the authorities to arrange for allotting him land in exchange, if possible. No such right seems available on such an application that 10 bighas of land could have been allotted to the petitioner. 7 Then, the application as allegedly moved by the petitioner (Annex.6) seeking 20 bighas of land in khasra No. 280 min. had been for allotment of land for development of private forest. However, the allotment order (Annex.9) had been issued for an allotment under the Rules of 1970 and not under the Rules of 1986. It may be pointed out that nature of allotment under the Rules of 1986 is different and in any case is not akin to the allotment under the Rules of 1970. Essentially, the allotment under the Rules of 1986 is made on lease hold basis and with restriction on transfer. Such an allotment under the Rules of 1986 is rather in the nature of tree plantation permit and the ownership of the land continues to vest in the Government [vide Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules of 1986]. The allotment order (Annex.9) had distinctly been issued in Form No. V as appended to the Rules of 1970 and as envisaged by Rule 15 of the Rules of 1970. The contents of the allotment order also make it clear that it had not been for development of private forest. It is rather strange that a submission was made before the Additional Collector in the review application that the petitioner had earlier per mistake moved the application for forests allotment! On the other hand, the suggestions in the writ petition are other way round and are rather based on the 8 submissions that the petitioner did move the application under the Rules of 1986. Be that as it may, as noticed, the allotment in question had been under the Rules of 1970 and thus, had rightly been examined under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970. The submissions against maintainability of the proceedings under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 cannot be accepted. The allotment in question, when made under the Rules of 1970 and found wanting in the requisite proceedings, could not have been approved. As noticed, it is difficult to accept that for 4 biswas of agricultural land allegedly going in road, the petitioner would be allotted as much as 10 bighas of land! In any case, the allotment under the Rules of 1970 could not have been made without adopting the requisite proceedings including issuance of necessary proclamation and consideration of the matter by the Advisory Committee in its quorum. The authorities have pointed out want of all the necessary proceedings for making such allotment; and in the given fact situation, there appears no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned setting aside the offending allotment. The submission about want of authority and jurisdiction in passing the order dated 23.02.1996 (Annex.10) appears to be entirely baseless. The said order had not been passed by 9 the Sub-Divisonal Officer, Rajsamand as argued, but had been passed by the Additional Collector, Rajsamand. The jurisdiction of the said authority to deal with the application was not questioned whether in the review application or before the Board of Revenue. The submission as attempted to be made before this Court that the petitioner was even otherwise entitled to be allotted under the Rules of 1970 do not inspire confidence nor such submission seems to have been made before the learned subordinate authorities. The only case of the petitioner was of the allotment having been made in lieu of his land taken in road. The petitioner, otherwise having 40 bighas and 17 biswas of land could not have been considered a landless person; and in any event, allotment of 10 bighas of land could not have been made to him without adopting the requisite proceedings. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the offending allotment has rightly been set aside. The submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner remain either incongruous or baseless. No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. 10 (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/