Raja Ram vs Board of Revenue and Others

The learned senior counsel Mr. J.L. Purohit with Mr. N.R. Budania has put in appearance for the contesting respondent i.e., respondent No. 5 Hakim Khan. Looking to the subject- matter, while dispensing with service on the other respondents, the matter has been heard finally at this stage itself at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner of CWP No. 6768/2012 seeks to question the order dated 06.05.2013 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to exercise writ jurisdiction against the order dated 25.06.2012, as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer (''the Board'') in Revision No. 9075/2011/Colo/Jaisalmer.

Put in brief, the relevant background aspects are as follows: The matter relates to allotment of agriculture land comprised in Square No. 18/59 at Chak 47 PD admeasuring 22 bighas and 5 biswas. The land in question was allotted to the present appellant Raja Ram on 29.04.2008 in exchange of the land previously allotted to him in Chak 49/52 PD on 31.07.2007. The appellant made the deposit of the requisite amount in pursuance of the exchange allotment order and the pass-book was also issued in his name.

However, allegedly, the respondent No. 5 Hakim Khan had also applied for allotment of the same piece of land comprised in Square No. 18/59 at Chak 47 PD but, the proceedings in his case were drawn with reference to Square No. 78/59. The respondent No. 5, being aggrieved of the allotment order dated 29.04.2008 issued in favour of the appellant, preferred an appeal (No. 11/2011) before the Additional Commissioner Colonisation-cum- Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer (''the RAA'').

The RAA proceeded to allow the said appeal ex parte on 15.09.2011 with the observations that the appellant Raja Ram submitted an option for exchange allotment of the land in Square No. 18/59 and the Tehsil reported that the land in question was free from any dispute and no application in its relation was pending whereas the present respondent No. 5 Hakim Khan had made the application for allotment of this very land; and his application had not been rejected. The RAA was of the view that the land in question could have been allotted to the appellant Raja Ram only if the application made by Hakim Khan had been rejected; and the allotment made on the basis of a wrong report could not be sustained. Thus, while setting aside the allotment order dated 29.04.2008, the RAA proceeded to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation i.e., the allotting authority with the directions that the present respondent No. 5 be provided an opportunity of producing evidence and, thereafter, order be passed in accordance with law on the application moved by him; and if found eligible, the land in question be allotted to him. So far the present appellant is concerned, the RAA observed in the questioned order dated 15.09.2011 that if found eligible for special allotment, some other land be allotted to him in exchange.

The appellant preferred a revision (No. 9075/2011/Colo/Jaisalmer) against the aforesaid order dated 15.09.2011 before the Board. While this revision petition remained pending, the allotting authority i.e., the Assistant Commissioner Colonization, by the order dated 19.12.2011, proceeded to observe that there had been a mistake in dealing with the application moved by the respondent No. 5 Hakim Khan; and the land in question would have been allotted to him but for such a mistake in the proceedings. It was also observed that the allotment to the present appellant Raja Ram was not correct and while cancelling the same, the case of the respondent No. 5 Hakim Khan was ordered to be placed in the meeting of the Allotment Advisory Committee whereas the appellant was ordered to be issued notice for submitting the exchange option afresh.

It appears that against the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2011, the appellant attempted to maintain the appeal but the RAA declined to entertain the same by the orders dated 09.02.2012 and 16.02.2012. Against these orders dated 09.02.2012 and 16.02.2012, the appellant filed other revisions, being Revision No. 1102/2012/Colo/Jaisalmer and 1981/2012/Colo/Jaisalmer.

It is borne out from the record that the Board proceeded to decide all the aforesaid three revisions on the same date i.e. 25.06.2012 by separate orders. In Revision No. 9075/2011/Colo/Jaisalmer, the Board accepted the application moved by the present respondent No. 5 and upheld the contention that the said revision was rendered infructuous because of passing of the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2011 by the Allotting Authority. However, the Board also observed that the grounds taken in the revision could be agitated and raised in the proceedings assailing the final order dated 19.12.2011; and thus, granted liberty to the appellant to maintain an appeal in the proper forum against the order dated 19.12.2011.

On the other hand, in revision No. 1102/2012/Colo/Jaisalmer the Board found the order dated 09.02.2012 as passed by the RAA violative of principles of natural justice and while setting aside the same, directed re-consideration of the appeal filed by the present appellant. Till then, operation of the order passed by the Allotting Authority on 19.12.2011 was ordered to remain stayed. Similarly, in revision No. 1981/2012/Colo/Jaisalmer, the Board proceeded to set aside the order passed by the RAA on 16.02.2012 and directed consideration of the appeal on merits and, again, the operation of the order dated 19.12.2011 was ordered to remain stayed.

Seeking to challenge the order passed in revision No. 9075/2011/Colo/Jaisalmer, the petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 06.05.2013 while observing that by the order impugned, the Board had only remanded the matter to the RAA.

Though in the order passed in revision No. 9075/2011/Colo/Jaisalmer, the matter has not as such been remanded but, by the other orders of the even date in the other revisions, the Board has indeed disapproved the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and has directed the decision of appeal on merits. As noticed, even while treating the matter in revision No. 9075/2011/Colo/Jaisalmer infructuous because of passing of the order by the Allotting Authority, the Board has granted liberty to the appellant to maintain an appeal in the proper forum against the order so passed by the Allotting Authority on 19.12.2011; and has observed that the grounds taken in the revision could well be agitated in such proceedings against the order dated 19.12.2011. In the totality of circumstances and the fact situation of the present case, it is but clear that the basic intent and purport of the orders passed by the Board on 25.06.2012 had been that the rival claims of the appellant and the respondent No. 5 for the land in question be properly adjudicated in appropriate proceedings after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to them. On the substance of the matter, we find nothing of jurisdictional error on the part of the Board and hence, no case for interference in this appeal.

However, the learned counsel for the appellant appears right to the extent of the submission that when the revision against the order dated 15.09.2011 has been treated as infructuous and this order of the Board with all its observations becomes final, the appellant might be prejudiced in his submissions before the RAA in the pending matters. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interest of justice shall be served with a little clarification that even if Revision No. 9075/2011/Colo/Jaisalmer has been dismissed by the Board as infructuous, that shall not operate prejudicial to the appellant so as to deprive him of his contentions against the order dated 15.09.2011 and other orders as passed in favour of the respondent No. 5. In other words, we make it clear that in the pending matters, dismissal of Revision No. 9075/2011/Colo/Jaisalmer as infructuous shall not, by itself, operate prejudicial to the appellant; and the RAA shall be expected to deal with the pending matters as remanded by the Board dispassionately and objectively.

It goes without saying but is made clear that in case the RAA finds it just and proper, it would always be open for it to remand the matter for consideration afresh by the Allotting Authority. There being no ground to interfere otherwise, this appeal stands dismissed, of course, subject to the observations foregoing.