1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- (1) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1132 of 2000 STATE & ORS. V/S DEEP CHAND (2) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1129 of 2000 STATE & ORS. V/S TRILOK CHAND (3) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1130 of 2000 STATE & ORS. V/S DAMODAR PRASAD (4) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1133 of 2000 STATE & ORS. V/S MOOL CHAND MEHRA Mr. HEMANT CHOUDHARY, GC, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SUDHEER SHARMA, for the respondent Date of Order : 6.10.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE MRS. MEENA V. GOMBER,J. ORDER ----- All these four appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge, so also common order of the learned Board of Revenue, and therefore, are being decided together. The controversy involved in the present matters is regarding validity of the allotment of lands made to the private respondents, in the sense, that the Tehsildar and Patwari reported the allottees to be not bonafide landless agriculturists, while the Allotting Authority purportedly made 2 an inquiry himself, and concluded them to be bonafide landless agriculturists, and made allotments. Then proceedings were initiated for cancellation, somehow that notice was withdrawn. Then it appears that the matter was taken up by Vigilance, and notices were again issued, and thereupon, the Commissioner cancelled the allotments, discussing the reports of the Allotting Authority, Tehsildar and Patwari, which cancellation order was challenged by the allottees before the Board of Revenue unsuccessfully. Thereafter, writ petitions were filed, and the learned Single Judge chose to interfere with the findings mainly on the ground that according to him the inquiry conducted by the Allotting Authority himself personally was required to be preferred over the report of the Tehsildar and Patwari, and accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, and allotments were restored. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Brij Lal Vs. Board of Revenue reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128. Having gone through the impugned orders and the documents available on record, we are not satisfied with the reports, either of the Tehsildar, or Patwari, or the Allotting Authority, as on the face of it, it appears that some of the allottees have been found by the Commissioner to be residents of Jaisalmer, while the Allotting Authority made inquiry in the village Sum, which is at a distance of 45 kms. from Jaisalmer, and has not reported anything about their being residents of Jaisalmer. Likewise, regarding the alleged fair price shop, being run by Deepchand, also no inquiry appears to have been made, and it appears that by merely orally asking some villagers, the report was submitted. We may make it clear that by making the above 3 observations, we do not mean to express any opinion on our side, on the aspect, as to whether the allottees are bonafide landless agriculturists or not, but then we are of the view that the interest of justice requires that a fresh independent inquiry should be got conducted on the question, as to whether at the time of allotment, the allottees were bonafide landless agriculturists or not. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge, Board of Revenue and the Commissioner also, and as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties, we refer the matter back to the Commissioner (Colonisation) with a direction to look into the records, and conduct an independent inquiry with active participation of the allottees, so also from such other legally permissible sources as the Commissioner (Colonisation) thinks appropriate, and come to a conclusion either-ways, as to whether as on the date of allotment, the allottees were bonafide landless agriculturists or not. We further order that if the Commissioner (Colonisation) finds that the allottees were bonafide landless agriculturists at that time, then the allotments made will stand, and in case, the Commissioner comes to a conclusion that the allottees were not landless bonafide agriculturists at that time, then the allotment shall stand cancelled, and the order of the Board of Revenue shall revive. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner (Colonisation) on 7th December 2009. The Commissioner is also directed to complete the inquiry as 4 expeditiously as possible. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed/disposed of, as above. ( MEENA V. GOMBER ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/