Duli Chand vs Doongar Ram and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the orders passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar on 14.03.1984 and 16.07.1991 cancelling the allotment of land of petitioner and against the order dated 28.4.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted 16 bighas and 10 biswas of land of khasra No. 397 of village Udasar Chhota, Tehsil Nohar in the year 1972. The respondent No. 1 filed a complaint to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar on 22.8.1978 stating that at the time of allotment of land of khasra No. 397 son of Aadu Ram was minor and, therefore, he was not eligible for allotment of land. On the said complaint, the District Collector has referred the matter to the S.D.O., Nohar for his comments. The said S.D.O., Nohar in turn has asked Tehsildar Nohar for furnishing report. The Tehsildar Nohar has referred the matter to the Naib Tehsildar for submitting enquiry report and the Nayab Tehsildar has asked the Patwari concerned to make report. The patwari concerned submitted report on 19.10.1978 in which it is stated that the age of son of Adu Ram is about 12-13 years. The said report was thereafter referred to the District Collector and the District Collector vide order dated 10.1.1980 ordered for initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 11 and 14 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.

In pursuance of the notice issued on behalf of the District Collector, reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The District Collector, after haring the parties concerned, passed the impugned orders dated 14.3.1984 and 16.7.1991 and cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in respect of 16 bighas 10 biswas land of khasra No. 397 of village Udasar Chhota, Tehsil Nohar.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, however, the Board of Revenue also dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 28.4.1997 and has confirmed the orders passed by the learned Collector.

The petitioner, by this writ petition, has assailed the validity of orders passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar as well as Board of Revenue.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the District Collector has passed the order without making any enquiry in respect of the age of the petitioner and has illegally passed the order for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 1972. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question since 1972 and has developed the land by obtaining loan and, therefore, after lapse of long time, if he is dispossessed from the land in question, he will suffer great losses.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Tej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, and Brij Lal Vs. Board of Revenue and Others,

Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has supported the orders passed by the District Collector as well as the Board of Revenue and has argued that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was illegal and, therefore, the same has rightly been cancelled.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 14.3.1984 passed in Case No. 4/1980 and order dated 16.7.1991 passed in case No. 5/85 by the District Collector as well as the Board of Revenue dated 28.4.1997.

This Court vide order dated 7.7.2009 has requisitioned the record of the Case No. 4/1980 from the Court of the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. The same has been received and thoroughly scrutinized by this Court.

After going through the record, it is clear that the District Collector has passed the impugned orders dated 14.3.1984 and 16.7.1991 solely on the basis of report of patwari dated 19.10.1978. However, from the record, it is not clear that how the patwari concerned came to the conclusion that the age of son of Aadu Ram was 12-13 years on the date when he made the report. It is also not clear from the said report that what was the name of boy, whose age was referred by the patwari in his report. It is also not borne out that on what basis the patwari has determined the age of the petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence is available on record on the basis of which patwari has determined the age of son of Aadu Ram in the year 1978. The learned Collector also did not attempt to ascertain that what was the age of the petitioner at the time of allotment or at the time of passing of the impugned orders. The findings given by the District Collector are solely based on the report of the Patwari, which certainly was not supported by any material and, therefore, in such circumstances, the findings arrived at by the Collector that at the time of allotment of the land in question, the petitioner was minor, is based on no material and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

It is also to be noted that after the allotment of the land, the petitioner has continuously cultivating the said land and is nourishing the land in question for over a period of four decades. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Brij Lal''s case (supra) has held as under:-

Even otherwise, there was no justification for the Authorities under the Rules to reject the school certificate and the medical certificate. There was not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the appellant was minor on the date of temporary allotment. After making temporary allotment in favour of the appellant if it was sought to be cancelled on the ground that the appellant was minor at the time of allotment, then the onus was on the Authorities to show that the appellant had made misrepresentation regarding his age. There was no basis at all for the Authorities under the Rules to reach the finding that the appellant was minor on the date of the temporary allotment.

It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating possession of the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades.

In the case in hand also the District Collector has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was minor at the time of allotment without there being any iota of evidence and it is also not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is in possession of the allotted land since the date of allotment. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.03.1984, 16.07.1991 and 28.4.2007 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.