1 S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.22/2009. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Khinya Ram Date of Order :: 15th September 2009. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, G.C., for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Nehra, for the respondent. …. BY THE COURT: This review petition has been filed pursuant to the order dated 06.07.1998 as passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 610/1998 in relation to the common order dated 01.04.1998 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court insofar related to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4296/1993. By the common order dated 01.04.1998, three similar writ petitions bearing numbers 4296/1993, 4290/1993 and 5575/1993 were decided together and were allowed. The said writ petitions were preferred against the common order dated 23.06.1993 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer camp Bikaner in three similar revision petitions. The relevant background aspects are that the petitioners of the said three writ petitions were allotted different parcels of land situated at Chak 5 SDWMU in their capacity as displaced persons from Mahajan Field Firing Range. The writ petitioners, thereafter, made the applications for allotment of 2 adjoining strips of land as small patch; and such strips were allotted to them by the order dated 19.01.1987 and were handed over in possession. However, on 19.07.1991, the writ petitioners were served with the notices for cancellation of such allotment and, ultimately, the allotments were cancelled by the common order dated 04.08.1993 as passed by the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner essentially for the reason that the land in question had allegedly been allotted to the Forest Department and was not available for allotment. The revision petitions preferred by the allottees against the order so passed by the Commissioner Colonisation were dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the common order dated 23.06.1993 and hence were filed the aforesaid three writ petitions before this Court that were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned common order dated 01.04.1998. The learned Single Judge noticed the basic point for determination in the matters, i.e., as to whether the strips of lands allotted to the writ petitioners were the part of the land allotted to the Forest Department in the year 1980 ? The learned Single discussed the material placed on record and found baseless the contention of the respondents and so also the observations of the Board of Revenue that the land had been allotted to the Forest Department in the year 1980. The learned Single Judge observed as under:- 3 “7. The crucial point to be determined is whether the strips of lands allotted to the petitioners were the part of the land allotted to Forest Department in 1980. 8. Order Anx. R/2 nowhere mentions the land of chak no. 5 SDWMU. Therefore, this does not seem to be correct that the disputed land had been allotted to the Forest Department in 1980 vide order Anx. R/2. No other order has been placed on record. During arguments Mr. Khan also referred to the order Anx. R/1 published in Official Gazette dt. 21.2.94 in which lands of Chak 5 SDWMU has been shown as forest land. This is the position of 1994 i.e. after the decision by the Revenue Board. On the basis of this document it cannot be found proved that the disputed land had been allotted to the Forest Department in 1980. 9. Besides that, the document Anx. 6 placed on record in writ petitions no. 5575/93 and 4290/93 dt. 15.9.91 which is a letter from the Forest Department to the Colonisation, Tehsildar clearly shows that the land had never been allotted to the Forest Department and the Department had not taken possession of the land. It is thus obvious that the respondents' version that this land had already been allotted to the Forest Department is without foundation. 10. It has all along been the case for the petitioners that their land was not allotted to the Forest Department. The Revenue Board observes in its order dt. 23.6.93 that this land had been allotted to the Forest Department in 1980 and it was not available for allotment to the petitioner. It is not clear on what basis the Revenue Board has made these observations. As there is no document produced on record justifying the observations of Revenue Board, the decision Anx. 5 dt. 23.6.93 cannot be upheld whereby it maintained the order Anx.3.” After the aforesaid observations, the learned Single Judge also rejected another contention pertaining to CWP No. 4 4290/1993 that the extent of the land allotted was not that of small patch and rejected the same too. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the impugned orders as passed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were quashed. It appears that the contesting respondents in the writ petitions, the State of Rajasthan and others, chose to prefer only one intra-court appeal against the order dated 01.04.1998, i.e., so far it related to CWP No. 4296/1993. The submissions were made before the Hon’ble Division Bench that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge about the land having never been allotted to the Forest Department and the said Department having never taken possession were not correct; and that the document Annexure-R/1 annexed to the reply filed by the appellants was on record but the same was not at all taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. The Hon’ble Division Bench expressed the opinion that instead of filing an appeal, the appellants should have approached the learned Single Judge by way of a review petition; and in view thereof, the appellants sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a review petition. The Hon’ble Division Bench granted the permission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn but then, made it clear that such permission was being granted only in relation to CWP No. 4296/1993 and not the other two writ petitions. The order 5 dated 06.07.1998 as passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench reads as under:- “Three petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment and order dated 1.4.98 by which the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were allowed. The submission of Mr. Chaudhary was that the learned Single Judge has committed an error on the face of the record when he has come to the conclusion that the land had never been allotted and the department has not taken the possession of land. He submitted that the document at Annex. R/1 annexed to the reply filed by the present appellant was very much on the record but the same was not at all taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that in-spite of that the learned Single has placed reliance upon the letter dated 15.9.91 which was on the record of the writ petition No. 5575/93 and 4290/93 (where there is no appeal). We are of the opinion that instead of filing an appeal, the appellant should have first approached the learned Single Judge by way of a review petition. In view of this, learned counsel Shri Chaudhary seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with a liberty to file a review before the learned Single Judge. However, he expressed the apprehension that review petition would be time barred. It is true that review petition would be time barred but it will be open to the appellant to file a review petition with an application for condonation of delay. As and when such an application is filed alongwith the review petition, the learned Single Judge will try to consider the application and try to consider the case in accordance with law. Permission is granted to withdraw this appeal. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, we make it clear that we have granted permission to file a review petition only in Writ Petition No. 4296/93 and not in other petitions.” 6 Thereafter, this review petition was filed on 31.07.1998 and ultimately, delay in filing the review petition was condoned on 01.05.2009. The review petition has been considered on its merits and there appears absolutely no reason to review the order dated 01.04.1998. The suggestion as made before the Hon'ble Division Bench that the document Annexure-R/1 was not considered by the learned Single Judge was not even correct on facts. The document Annexure-R/1 was definitely considered along with other documents; and the Hon’ble Single Judge pointed out that the document Annexure-R/1 had been published in official gazette dated 21.02.1994, i.e., even after the decision of the Board of Revenue. The Hon'ble Single Judge specifically held that on the basis of this document it was not proved that the disputed land had been allotted to the Forest Department in the year 1980. A perusal of the order dated 01.04.1998 makes it clear that all the relevant documents were taken into consideration before finding baseless the observations of the Board of Revenue that the land had been allotted to the Forest Department. There cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record so as to consider the matter within the limited jurisdiction for review of an order. There are other strong reasons wherefor this Court does not feel persuaded to consider any interference in the order 7 dated 01.04.1998 now at this stage. The fundamental fact that the land in question had already been allotted to the Forest Department was never free from doubt and it appears that the writ petitioners, who had been allotted the land in question way back in the year 1987, have continued in possession thereof. It is noticed that in the writ petition, the stay order was passed on 27.08.1993 directing that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. There appears no reason to disturb the position that has continued for all these years in relation to the strip of land allotted to the petitioner along side the land already available with him in regular allotment. Furthermore, as noticed, by the impugned order dated 01.04.1998, three similar writ petitions were allowed and the upshot of the order dated 01.04.1998 is that the land in question as allotted to the writ petitioners in Chak 5 SDWMU has been found to be not that of the Forest Department; and the reason of cancellation of such small patch allotment has been found to be invalid. It has not been the contention of the review petitioners that the land allotted to the other writ petitioners was differently situated than the land as related to the writ petitioner in CWP No. 4296/1993. There had been common order passed by the Commissioner Colonisation on the same grounds and same reasons in relation to the three allottees and so was the common order passed by the Board of Revenue in relation to these three persons. The 8 considerations prevailing with the learned Single Judge in allowing the three writ petitions by the common order dated 01.04.1998, as were applicable to the other two writ petitioners do, ipso facto, apply to the writ petitioner of CWP No. 4296/1993. Hence, any consideration of the review petition, in the opinion of this Court, is likely to bring about rather an incongruous state of affairs particularly when it appears that the said order dated 01.04.1998 has not been challenged in relation to other two writ petitions. Thus, there appears no reason to consider any review of the order dated 01.04.1998 in relation to CWP No. 4296/1993. The review petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//