3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2573/2003 Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 11th November 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.G.R.Punia,for the petitioner Mr.O.P.Boob, for the respondents .... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the impugned order dated 02.07.2002 (Annex.3) as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No.34/1995. An application for conversion of agricultural land for non- agricultural purposes, as moved by the petitioner under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agriculture Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules,1981 (‘the Rules of 1981’) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaur in relation to a piece of land admeasuring 1466 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No.381, came to be rejected by the authorised officer on 03.02.1994 (Annexure 1/A) essentially on the grounds that the land in question was recorded as Gair Mumkin Agore and the petitioner failed to adduce any proof of his having khatedari rights therein. The Sub-Divisional Officer, apart from 1 finding that the petitioner was not entitled to seek conversion, also proceeded to direct the Tehsildar, Nagaur to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer Camp Nagaur with the submissions that the authorised officer earlier passed an order for registration of the matter on 15.04.1993 but then, suddenly passed the impugned order on 03.02.1994 ex-parte against the petitioner; that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order only on 21.08.1994 from the Patwari concerned; and that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer even refused to entertain the review application moved by the petitioner. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority, however, proceeded to dismiss the appeal essentially on the consideration that the land in question was a Government land and was not available for conversion. In the second appeal taken by the petitioner to the Board of Revenue, the learned member of the Board has considered all the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner in sufficient detail and has found that the appellant has failed to show if he was the khatedar of the land in question. The learned member of the Board has also considered the submissions of the petitioner on denial of opportunity of hearing by the Sub-Divisional Officer and has found such submissions lacking in force because the application for conversion was filed by the 2 petitioner himself and the documents produced were duly considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer in such quasi-judicial proceedings; and observed that for the appellant failing to adduce the requisite proof with regard to the fact of his having khatedari in the land in question, the application for conversion as filed by him was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1981 and, therefore, the matter called for no further enquiry. Seeking to assail the orders as passed by the revenue authorities, learned counsel Mr. G.R.Punia appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the authorities have proceeded totally oblivious of the record and have failed to consider the fundamental and essential facts that from out of the very same land as comprised in the said khasra No.381, several allotments have been made of huge chunks of land like that of more than 9 bighas to the Public Health Engineering Department, about 25 bighas to Kisan Chhatrawas etc.; and this apart, some portion of the land has indeed been converted in favour of other private individuals. According to learned counsel, for the Government having made such allotments and having allowed such conversions, the consideration that the land in question had been Gair Mumkin Agore, cannot be said to be correct or supported by the record. Learned counsel emphasized on the submission that the Sub-Divisional Officer took up for consideration the 3 application moved by the petitioner even before the date fixed in the matter and then proceeded to reject the same without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; and contended that the matter deserves to be remanded to the said authority. From the facts as available on record, the aspect, of course, remains undeniable that the Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to reject the application for conversion as moved by the petitioner without extending him an opportunity of hearing but then, such an aspect has duly been considered by the learned member of the Board of Revenue while finding no force in the appeal preferred by the petitioner; and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the observations as made by the learned member cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. The petitioner, as an applicant for conversion/regularisation of the land, had essentially the right of consideration of his application and it is apparent on the face of the record that the Sub-Divisional Officer has not proceeded in a whimsical or arbitrary manner but has duly considered the application and rejected the same only after precisely finding that the land in question was recorded as Gair Mumkin Agore and so also after noticing the significant fact that the petitioner was not having any khatedari rights in the land in question. In the entire length of submissions, as made before the Board of Revenue and even as made before this Court, it has 4 not been pointed out if the petitioner was having any khatedari rights in relation to the land in question. For the fundamental reason that the petitioner was not having the khatedari rights in relation to the land in question, the claim for conversion of the land as made by him was bound to be, and has rightly been, rejected. In this fact situation, the submissions that the matter be remanded for re-consideration of the Sub-Divisional Officer do not carry weight. The denial of opportunity of hearing does not ipso facto make out a case for interference unless a specific case of prejudice is made out. In the matter of present nature, where the authorities have rejected the application on relevant considerations and after finding fundamental lack of entitlement in the petitioner, even when the Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the application without hearing the petitioner, this aspect does not by itself make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court particularly when all the aspects relating to the facts of the case and so also the law applicable have duly been considered by the Board of Revenue. The submissions as made with reference to the report (Annexure 4) about certain portions of the land comprised in khasara No. 381 having been allotted for certain other public utility purposes do not make out a case that the land as claimed by the petitioner is required to be converted at his 5 instance. Similarly, even if some portion has allegedly been converted in relation to certain other persons, that does not by itself make out a case in favour of the petitioner more particularly when he has failed to establish his right in the land in question. There is no force in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs. At the conclusion of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some observations be made so to clarify that this order would not otherwise operate to the prejudice of the petitioner if he would adopt suitable proceedings, including those for declaration of his khatedari rights. Suffice is to say in this regard that the petitioner's taking resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law does not require any observations from the Court particularly when, the present matter has been considered only in relation to the question if the petitioner had any right to seek conversion of the land in question. Looking to the subject matter of this petition, no other observations seem requisite. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni 6