1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 631 of 1997 MAHENDRA KUMAR V/S STATE & ORS Mr. B. S. Charan for Mr. R.K. Charan for the appellant. Date of Order : 28.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.96, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, whereby, the petitioner-appellant had sought to challenge the orders of the Board of Revenue and other Authorities below, whereby, the allotment of land made in his favour has been cancelled. In very brief, the facts are that the petitioner- appellant has been alloted land in question, measuring 6 bigha vide order No.39/72 dated 13.07.72, for which, an agreement was executed on 11.11.72, and was put in possession, and also claims to have made improvements as investing a sum of Rs.6000/- or so, which subsequently, increased up to Rs.20,000/-. Subsequently, the Collector, Chittorgarh issued a show cause notice, as to why the allotment shall not be cancelled, without pointing out any 2. specific reason as to cancellation of the allotment. The petitioner-appellant submitted the reply. However, the allotment was cancelled vide order Annexure/8 dated 26.06.79, on the ground, that the petitioner-appellant was born on 05.07.54, as such, he was minor on the date of allotment. The allotment was made on 13.07.72 (03.05.72). This order was challenged in appeal. However, it was affirmed and the Revenue Board dismissed the second appeal also, and the writ petition was also dismissed. The learned Single Judge has found that the orders of the Authorities below were challenged on two grounds, being firstly, that the Authorities below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion, that the petitioner was not a land less person and secondly, that at the time of executing the agreement, the petitioner had attained majority, therefore, the allotment could not have been cancelled. The learned Single Judge found, that the Authorities below have concurrently found the petitioner to be not a land less person and this being the finding of fact, it is not open to this Court to go into the correctness of the same. Then, regarding minority also, it was found that the Board of Revenue had passed the order, relying upon the judgment reported in 1982 R.R.D. 166, and the said contention was also rejected. Then, reliance was placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1995 RRD 68, this judgment was distinguished by the learned Single 3. Judge, finding that the petitioner has continued to remain in possession only because of the orders of the Court and, thus, the writ petition was dismissed. Arguing the appeal, our attention was invited to Annexure/4, being the notice to show that therein, it was not the ground given that the allotment sought to be cancelled on account of petitioner being minor or on account of petitioner being not a land less person and, then, it was submitted that the petitioner submitted reply to the notice being Annexures/5 & 6, controverting the allegations in Annexure/4, and not only this, no evidence was led from the side of the State. In such circumstances, the petitioner also moved an application Annexure/7, but then the order Annexure/8 has been passed on the ground, that the petitioner being minor, and that the land was earlier alloted to the petitioner's father, which was cancelled on 23.04.71 and the allotment to the petitioner can be taken to be only paper adjustment and, then, the Revenue Appellate Authority has found, that the petitioner is not a land less person and endorsing the finding of minor, the orders then passed. It was also contended, that the charges, on the basis, the allotment was sought to be cancelled, were not shown to the petitioner. We have considered the submissions and have gone through the material available with us. A look at 4. Annexure/4 shows, that notices called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why, the allotment could not be cancelled for varying reasons given therein being, that the petitioner is not an agriculturist nor he has cultivated the land personally, nor the main source of livelihood is agriculture and that he does not fall under the category of a land less person, and that in this regard, various applications from the persons belonging to land less, SC and ST were pending, and without considering them, the allotment has been made in favour of the petitioner in violation of the Rules. Of-course, it was not specifically mentioned therein, that the petitioner was a minor or that the land was earlier alloted to his father, which has been cancelled, and it was a matter of paper adjustment. However, the matter does not end here. In such circumstances, a mere look at Annexure/7 transpires, that the statements of the petitioner were recorded, and the petitioner has not produced before us as to what were the statements given by him in these proceedings. Then, coupled with the fact that in Annexure/8, it is revealed, that in the statements of the petitioner, he gave out to be cultivating the land for last 2 to 3 years, and has also produced the school certificate about age, showing his date of birth to be 05.07.54. Thus, coupled with the fact that the grounds submitted before us, in substance, amounts to be raising the ground of violation of principles of natural 5. justice but, then any of these objections were not taken before any of the Appellate Authorities below. Rather, the issue was joined about the age, the petitioner being a land less person and so on. In such circumstances, if the Authorities below have adjudicated the aspect about the petitioner being not a land less person and about the petitioner being minor on the date of allotment, it cannot be said that the cancellation of allotment is bad. In addition, we have observed, that if the petitioner has deposed about his cultivating the land for last 2 to 3 years only, obviously, it cannot be said, that at the time of making the application for allotment, or at the time of allotment, he was a land less agriculturist. In these circumstances, we are at one with the finding recorded by the learned Authorities below, so also the learned Single Judge. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the Special Appeal, having no force, stands dismissed. Interim stay, obviously, comes to an end automatically. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. ms rathore