1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R CIVIL WRIT No. 5135 of 2008 CHAINA RAM & ANR. V/S STATE OF RAJ. & ORS Date of Order : 6.4.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE SHRI NP GUPTA,J. Mr. M MRIDUL, Sr.Advocate with Mr.PS CHUNDAWAT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SUNDEEP BHANDAWAT, G.C., Mr. DINESH MEHTA, for the respondent BY THE COURT : This petition under Article 226 has been filed by villagers of Gram Panchayat Khen, Tehsil and District Nagaur in the nature of a public interest litigation writ. The allegations are that 324 bigha 2 biswa of land comprising of Khasra No.486 of village Khun (sic Khen) was recorded as pasture land in the revenue record till 2007. However, in order to allot the said land for other purposes the respondent Manipulated the record of land revenue and an entry of “Gair Mumkin Gochar Bhumi/and/or for general purposes” were designed to enter against the land in question, and it is alleged that pasture land cannot be used for other purposes. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rule 169(7) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and on Section 16 of the 2 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to contend that no Khatedari rights can accrue in pasture land. But ignoring all these provisions, the respondent No.3 has been allotted the said land for the purpose of establishing a cement factory, which is illegal. It is pleaded that there are about 800 to 1000 cattle heads in number, and therefore, allotment will result in great problem, families whose livelihood is based on grazing would be adversely affected, rather the whole economy of the village will collapse. Then it is contended that land in question is also a catchment area as the rain water comes over this land and collects in village pond. The slope of this land is towards two village ponds. In this regard some photograph has been produced as Annexure-3. It is contended that the District Collector, Nagaur vide communication dated 10.9.2007 has directed Tehsildar to enter mutation entry in favour of the respondent No.3 referring to the order of the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Group-3, Government of Rajasthan dated 13.9.2007 and accordingly entries have been made. The residents represented before the Collector and the Secretary, Revenue Department but all in vain. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 contending inter-alia that it is a frivolous litigation by persons having vested interest and has been filed to settle ulterior score. It is pleaded that under Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 read with the provisions of Rajasthan Industrial Area Development Rules, 1959 the powers do vest with the State Government to make allotment, and has 3 rightly been made. It was pleaded that it was way-back vide order dated 6.1.1986 that the land was set apart by the Collector under the provisions of Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for industrial purposes and the State Government issued order to allot the land to M/s.KEC International Limited Company for establishment of Sulfate Resistant Oil and Portland Cement Industries, and possession was handed over in 1988. The Company is regularly making payment of lease and rent since then. Thus it was pleaded that the petition is bad for delay and latches. Reliance was placed on Rule 164 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules regarding making of entries, and it was pleaded that according to the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Area Development) Rules, the pasture land can be allotted for the non-agricultural purposes, and the Government had already issued a circular dated 12.12.1963 containing conditions in this regard. It was also pleaded that according to the census of the year 2001, the total cattle head population was 458, whereas 402 bighas of land stands recorded as pasture land in the revenue record, and even after making the allotment of land in question, there remains 370 bigha of pasture land in the village. It was pleaded that villagers are not using the land either as a pond or as a catchment area. It was also pleaded that the representative of Akhil Bhartiya Veer Tejaji Maharaj filed a suit before the SDO, which suit after due inquiry has already been dismissed and this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. It was also pleaded that the Gram Panchayat vide resolution No.3 in its meeting dated 21.8.1987 resolved to issue NOC for 4 allotment of the land in question in the interest of public at large. The meeting was attended by 11 members along with the Sarpanch, and was a unanimous resolution, but these facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. Inter-alia with these pleadings it was prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. A separate reply has been filed by respondent No.3 pleading that the land was set apart for establishment of Sulfate Resistant Oil & Portland Cement Industrial Plant for M/s.KEC International in the year 1986 and that the petitioners have woken up from the slumber after 20 years simply to stall industrial activities of the respondent No.3 for ulterior motives. It was pleaded that out of 324 bigha of Khasra No.486, only 132 bigha has been set apart and has been allotted to the private respondent. Then the pleading about the land being catchment area was denied. It was pleaded that photograph, Annexure-3, does not show correct picture and that the catchment area of a pond is decided by the Government, and is declared as Agore, and is recorded as such in the revenue record, while there is no such entry with regard to land in question. It was also pleaded that from the satellite image it is clear that the village pond is at a distance about 1.7 kms. from the land in question. Thus it does not affect the catchment area or the pond. The respondent produced the copy of resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 25.8.1986. Other pleadings taken by the respondents No.1 and 2 were adopted and reiterated. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5 A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the reply of respondents No.1 and 2, contending that the public interest litigation petition has been filed for ventilating illegality and fraud committed by the State authority in connivance with the private respondent in allotting the pasture land. It was pleaded that the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act are not applicable in the matter of grant of pasture land for allotment or any other purpose as they apply only to agricultural land. Hence the orders are void ab-initio. Then it is pleaded that the land was initially allotted to M/s.KEC International for establishment of Sulfate Resistant Oil and Portland Cement Industries vide order dated 21.3.1988 and the petitioners failed to understand, as to how land is allotted in favour of respondent No.3 being M/s.Indo Nippon Special Cement Ltd. The land allotted in the year 1988 was transferred to respondent No.3. Then it was pleaded that so far as the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government Land) Rules, 1955 are concerned, they are not attracted, and according to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Area Development) Rules, 1959 if the land is not used within the specified period, it shall revert back to the government automatically unless the allotting authority extends the said period and that the land was allotted in 1988 and it has not been made clear, as to whether thereafter any extension has been made. Then it was pleaded that the Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government Land) Rules has been substituted vide Notification dated 19.5.1993, then how the allotment of land made in the year 1988, is 6 not clear. Provisions of Section 16(i) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were again pressed into service. It was then pleaded that for total population of cattle, at least 400-500 bigha of land is required. About it being catchment area, it was pleaded that since years, the rain water of this catchment area is flowing. A sur-rejoinder (purportedly reply to rejoinder) has been filed by respondents No.1 and 2 pleading that the restriction clause does not find place in the order of the Collector dated 6.1.1988. It is pleaded that land was allotted to a company being M/s.KEC International Limited, who informed vide letter dated 8.6.1988 that the proposed cement plant would be established by M/s.Indo Nippon Cement Ltd., which is the company promoted by M/s.KEC International Ltd., and therefore, it has requested for converting the allotment in the name of M/s.Indo Nippon Cement Ltd. This letter has been produced as Annexure-R/R/2. It was pleaded that this letter was considered and examined and it was directed that the name of the company in allotment order be replaced from M/s.KEC International Ltd to M/s.Indo Nippon Cement Ltd. Then it was pleaded that extension was given in the past. In para 5 it was also pleaded that even after pasture land in favour of the respondent No.3 there is 370 bigha of excess pasture land in comparison to the cattle census. We have heard learned counsel and have gone through the record. Learned counsel referred to a couple of judgments of this Court also. 7 At the outset we may observe that the petitioners came with the grievance of all the 324 bighas of land comprised in Khasra No.486 to have been allotted to the private respondent, while as has come on record, more so in the reply of the respondent No.3 itself that only 132 bighas out of 324.2 bigha has been allotted to the private respondent. It would suffice to say that this does clearly show that the petitioners have put up a wholly false boggy. Roughly around 200 bighas of land from out of Khasra No.486 still remains available and it is not shown, as to whether the alleged course of water flow from the remaining 200 bighasof land is towards 132 bighas of land or is towards the other side. This is one aspect of the matter. The other equally important aspect of the matter is that the petition is grossly belated as the allotment was made in 1980s and the present petition has been filed in 2008 only, say after around 20 years. Thirdly, a look at the provisions of Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with Section 5 (24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act would show that the provisions of Tenancy Act apply only to the land held for agricultural purposes. For the present controversy Section 92 of Land Revenue Act, so also under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government Land) Rules 1955, as they existed at the relevant time of 1980s also, do confer power on the Collector to set apart the land for other purposes, and as such, it cannot be said, either 8 that the prohibitions of Section 80 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are attracted, or that Land Revenue Act does not confer any power of changing the nature of land. Thus the basic ground taken for approaching this Court under PIL jurisdiction falls flat. It is clear from the copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat that it was unanimously resolved in the year 1986 that no objection should be given. Thus, after following due process of law, the action was taken. Thus, considering from any standpoint, we do not find any sufficient ground to invoke our PIL jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. So far as the contention about reversion of land in the event of non-user within the requisite period is concerned, that is a matter, which does not involve any public interest as such. In that view of the matter, if the petitioners feel that they are entitled to agitate this question of reversion of the land to the State they obviously are always free to initiate proceedings in that regard. Resultantly, we do not find any force in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( NP GUPTA ),J. ( DEEPAK VERMA ),C.J. /tarun/