State Of Rajasthan vs Kesula Devi And Ors

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-State challenging the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer wherein the revision petition filed by the legal representatives of ex-serviceman, against the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by Addl. Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner was accepted.

The brief facts of the case are that one ex-serviceman - Hari Kishan after rendering the service in Indian Army came to be allotted land by the State Government under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975. The allottee - Hari Kishan was allotted the said land after proceedings were undertaken by the allotment committee in its decision dated 09.06.2006. The petitioner-State has pleaded in the writ petition that after the land was allotted to Hari Kishan he had failed to deposit the required amount of allotment and did not fulfill the formalities of allotment and accordingly notices were sent to him dated 07.07.2006.

The petitioner-State has pleaded that after service of notice, reminder was sent on 16.04.2008 and when the report of process server came that original allottee Hari Kishan has died, the order dated 23.08.2012 was passed cancelling the decision of allotment of the land taken vide order dated 09.06.2006.

The legal representatives of late Hari Kishan approached to the Board of Revenue against the decision of cancellation of allotment dated 23.08.2012 and as such they filed the revision petition.

The revision petition filed by the legal representatives of Hari Kishan has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by the order dated 20.03.2014.

The instant petition has filed by the State-petitioner challenging the order dated 20.03.2014 and the instant petition was filed on 07.09.2017 before this Court as is reflected from the Office report.

This Court finds that the State has chosen to assail the order passed by the Board of Revenue after a lapse of more than 03 years. This Court finds that there is no limitation for filing the writ petition, however, the same does not mean that the party aggrieved from Board of Revenue, can file the writ petition at any time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 10.03.2016 where sanction was granted to file the writ petition before this Court by the State Government.

This Court finds that such opinion has been given by the Law Officer of the State Government by writing a letter on 10.03.2016 and almost one year and six months were taken to file the instant petition.

This Court does not approve the action of the petitioner-State to assail the order of the Board of Revenue after a lapse of 03 years and as such on this ground alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is contrary to the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sub-section(4) of Section 7 of the Act provides that a person will not be tenant or will not have right or tittle in land allotted to him until written order has been passed and he has taken the possession of the land with the permission of the Collector.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the instant case the original allottee did not comply with the terms of allotment and even possession was not handed over and as such no right was conferred in favour of the legal representatives of deceased allottee to ask for setting aside the cancellation of the order in the year 2012.

Learned counsel further argued that the legal representatives were not entitled for the relief as has been granted by the Board of Revenue as no right has been crystallized either in favour of the deceased allottee or the legal representatives.

This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on merits as well. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue has referred the Rajasthan Colonization Rules, 1975 and recorded a finding that once an allotment was made, the allotment could not be cancelled under the said Rule after the death of allottee.

This Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the opinion framed by the Board of Revenue while discussing the Rules of 1975. This Court does not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the original allottee since had not complied with the terms of the allotment, as such no right was conferred either in his favour or in favour of the legal representatives.

This Court finds that the competent authority while passing order dated 23.08.2012 has concealed the allotment of the land only on the premise that notices were sent before cancellation and the report of process server had come that original allottee had expired. This Court finds that the competent authority at least too ought to have heard the legal representatives of the original allottee and in absence of providing opportunity of personal hearing to such persons, the very initiation of cancellation of proceedings are not sustainable. This Court finds that even notice dt.16.04.2008 (Annex.-4) had contained a note that in case of death of allottee, his death certificate was to be filed by legal representatives.

This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order and the present writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

Copy of this order be sent to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by the Dy. Registrar (Judl.).