::1:: SAW-899-01/10.8.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.899/2001 Kala Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. Date of Judgment : 10th August, 2010 P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr. Y.C. Joshi for the appellants. Mr. R.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General for respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.7.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The appellant approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition aggrieved by the orders dated 18.2.1980 passed by the Tehsildar, Kishangarhbas; 27.1.1981 passed by the Additional Collector, Alwar; 5.5.1987 passed by the Revenue Apepllate Authority; and finally order dated 12.5.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue. Facts of the case are that the Tehsildar, Kishangarhbas, with respect to the 'Bilanam' well situated in Khasra No.338, issued 'sanad' on the basis of Circular of the Government dated 2.4.1963, which was objected to by the Government by way of ::2:: SAW-899-01/10.8.2010 filing appeal before the Additional Collector, Alwar. The Additional Collector remanded the matter back accepting the plea that the said order of allotment was passed without hearing the State Government. The appellant, dissatisfied with that order, approached the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority, in its order dated 5.5.1987, held that the Tehsildar has acted outside his jurisdiction in making such allotment because allotment of such land could be permissible only upto 31.5.1970. The appellant-petitioner then approached the Board of Revenue by way of filing revision petition, which was dismissed vide its order dated 12.5.1994 observing that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Shri Y.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the plea set up before the Additional Collector that no notice was issued prior to making such allotment, is wrong because notice, in fact, was issued on 8.2.1980 and was affixed at a conspicuous place in the village in question, in witness of Darshan Singh and Mohan Singh. It was contended that the Revenue Appellate Authority could not have set aside the allotment completely because the appeal was confined to challenging the order of remand only. Circular dated 2.4.1963 issued by the Government did not prescribe any time limit upto which application for such allotment could be made. It was contended that the copy of reply to the writ petition has not been supplied to him, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the earlier civil suit, in fact, was filed by the appellant. Learned counsel therefore, submits that this appeal may be allowed ::3:: SAW-899-01/10.8.2010 and all the impugned orders/judgments be set aside. Per contra, Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Circular of the Government dated 2.4.1963 was superseded by subsequent circular of the Government dated 21.4.1970 which had given time limit upto which application for allotment of the land of “Bilanam” could be made. In the present case while time limit expired on 31.5.1970, the appellant-petitioner made application for allotment on 6.2.1980. Learned counsel referred to the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority on this aspect of the matter and submitted that the learned Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in upholding the findings both on facts and also on law because the Land Revenue Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act do not permit allotment of such land on grant of khatedari rights in such land. Learned counsel also referred to the copy of plaint (Ann.R/4) showing that the appellant-petitioner has himself filed injunction suit on the same subject matter and ultimately did not pursue the same, which according to his instruction, was dismissed. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgments, we find that the appellant, in fact, had filed a civil suit which fact is duly supported by copy of the plaint produced before this Court. Even if we were to accept the plea of the appellant before us that copy of reply to the writ petition was not supplied to him, when a pointed out question was put to the learned counsel for the appellants whether this plea has been raised by him as ground of appeal challenging the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, he could not show any such ::4:: SAW-899-01/10.8.2010 grounds in whole of the memo of appeal. This has to be thus accepted as a question of fact that the appellant, indeed, had filed civil suit for injunction on the same subject matter. Moreover, on merits also, we find that when the time limit was fixed upto which application for allotment could be made was 31.5.1970, it was not open to the appellant to make application for allotment of such land 10 years thereafter and the Tehsildar, as rightly held by the Revenue Appellate Authority, has acted outside his jurisdiction in making allotment of such land which even otherwise, was barred by virtue of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Jagdish Bhalla)C.J. Skant/-