IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 33 of 2007 STATE & ANR. V/S MADAN & ORS. Mr. HR SONI,AGA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RR NAGORI, Mr.HK JAIN, for the respondent Date of Order : 14.9.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- The matter comes up on the application, for recalling the order of admission, on the ground, that much before admission of the writ, caveat had been filed, and copy was sent by registered post to the authorities concerned, but that caveat was not placed on record by the office, and the writ came to be admitted. On this application coming up for consideration, the Registry was directed to find out the caveat, and accordingly, it has been now placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that instead of going into the controversy about the effect of omission to place the caveat on the file, this Court may hear the writ petition itself on merits, right now itself, to which learned counsel for the respondent also has no objection, accordingly the matter has been finally heard. The facts of the case are, that vide order dated 11.5.2001, Annex.1, the Collector had ordered certain lands, existing in Khatedari of the private respondent, as government land, and in exchange, another land was given to the private respondent. This was done in view of the fact, that the private respondent and co-tenants filed application for exchange, on the ground, that part of the land in their Khatedari has turned out to be the land occupied by cremation ground, and is being used for public purposes. It appears, that thereafter, some villagers submitted some complaints to the Collector, and certain representations were given, to establish a cattle shed. However, vide order, Annex.4, dated 28.4.2004, the Collector set aside the order dated 11.5.2001, Annex.1, purporting to observe, that objections have been received against the exchange, and therefore, the matter was reconsidered, and it was found, that exchange was not in the interest of State. Against this order Annex.4, an appeal was filed by the private respondent before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which came to be allowed by order Annex.5, dated 12.10.2004, and therein it was found, that before sanctioning the exchange, reports were obtained from the Patwari, Land Revenue Inspector, Tehsildar and S.D.O., and even from the surveyor of the Mining Department, and the S.D.O., in his report dated 11.3.2003, also reported that Gram Panchayat has no objection in the 2 exchange. Likewise, the S.H.O. and the Superintendent of Police had also submitted the report, that there is no objection in the exchange. Thus it is clear, that no fresh facts have come to notice, so as to entitle the Collector to review the earlier order, apart from the fact, that the order could not be reviewed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without having heard the person effected. Against this order, two revisions were filed; one by the petitioner, and other by Chhoga Lal. The learned Board of Revenue noticed the contention of Chhoga Lal, that the land is mineral potential, and he has applied for grant of mining lease, which matter is pending in appeal before the Additional Director, Mines and Geology. Likewise, it was also noticed, that the private respondents have filed a revenue suit, wherein temporary injunction has been granted in their favour, against which appeal was filed, wherein application under Order 1 Rule 10 was filed, which was dismissed. It has also been considered, that the exchange was sanctioned after obtaining necessary no objection certificates from the concerned authorities, and after obtaining the reports. Noticing all these contentions, so also the contentions of the present petitioner in its revision, it was found, that before passing the order dated 11.5.2001, the Collector had investigated the matter thoroughly, obtained all necessary opinions and reports, from all relevant corners, and found, that the land, in exchange of which the other land is given, both the lands 3 are having identical potentials, and therefore, it cannot be said, that against the non-mining potential area, mining potential area has been granted by way of exchange, and that, no fresh facts have come to notice, to entitle the Collector to review. It has also been found, that the land given in exchange is adjoining land, and was given in exchange, only because the original land was occupied by the cremation ground etc., and was being used for public purposes. Revision of Chhoga Lal was dismissed on the ground, that Revenue Authority had dismissed the application for his impleadment, and it is not established that Chhoga Lal is an interested person. Inter-alia with these findings, the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority has been maintained. In my view, when the original land, and the land given in exchange, are found to be having the same potential, it cannot be said, that the Collector was right in setting aside the exchange, on the ground, that land given in exchange is having mineral potentials. I also find myself in full agreements with reasons given by two learned authorities below. The writ petition thus, has no force, and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/ 4