Dismissed

Kundan Prasad v. B O R and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2013SAW/222/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil special appeal against the Single Judge's order sustaining the Revenue Appellate Authority's remand to the SDO. The SDO had initially declined to approve one bidder's auction while approving another's for adjacent lands, raising an unequal yardstick issue. The Court found no merit in the intra-court appeal despite the appellant's name being in revenue records.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the stay application was rejected.

Kundan Prasad Vs B O R and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

{1} DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.222/2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.222/ 2013 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15884/ 2012

¶5

KUNDAN PRASAD Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN, AJMER & ORS.

¶6

DATE: DECEMBER 4th, 2013

¶7

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶8

Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, for the appellant. **** BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE):

¶9

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.02.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15884/ 2012, dismissing his challenge to the decision dated 14.09.2012 of the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, the appellant/ writ-petitioners seeks redress in the instant appeal.

¶10

We have heard Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

As the pleaded facts in the writ petition would reveal, in exercise of powers under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Colonization (Chambal Project Government Lands Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1957 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the Colonization Department of the State vide order No.F-4/ 17/ Colo/ 99/ 60-Jaipur, dated 27.11.2000, appointed Tehsildar, Bundi as an Authorized Officer for auctioning of government

¶12

DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.222/2013

¶13

lands. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bundi, by order No.2382-85/ Colo/ 2003, dated 05.12.2006, in furtherance of the process, notified the auction of lands of village Jakhmund, as specified therein, on 21.12.2006. Accordingly, the Tehsildar, Bundi conducted the auction of 5 Bigha 1 Biswa of land out of area of 6 Bigha 4 Biswa in Khasra No.626, 2 Bigha 1 Biswa in Khasra No.627 and 3 Bigha 3 Biswa in Khasra No.628, situated at village Jakhmund. Vis-avis the land in Khasra No.626, the bid of the respondent No.5, Shri Omprakash was accepted, pursuant to which he also deposited 25% of the offered amount. The SDO, Bundi, however, vide order dated 11.04.2007 declined to approve the auction of this land in favour of the respondent No.5, being of the opinion that the land involved was adjacent to the land of Kota UIT and Badgaon and that the road of Karni Mata was in the vicinity thereof. The said authority also recorded that there was a difference in the area of the lands comprising Khasra No.626, as mentioned in the relevant Jamabandi and Naksha trace and therefore, if the same was allotted without effecting necessary corrections in the revenue records, disputes were likely to follow. The SDO, Bundi, therefore, was of the view that the land comprising Khasra No.626, ought to be kept reserved for government/ public use.

¶14

The appellant/ writ-petitioner, however, was adjudged to be the acceptable bidder for the land in Khasra Nos.627 and 628 and eventually, his auction was approved by the SDO, Bundi vide his order dated 23.01.2007.

¶15

The respondent No.5 being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2007 of the SDO, Bundi, declining to approve his auction purchase of the land in Khasra No.626, filed an appeal in the Court of Revenue Appellate

¶16

{3} DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.222/2013

¶17

Authority, Kota. The appellant/ writ-petitioner was impleaded as a party respondent. The Revenue Appellate Authority, amongst others, on a consideration of the copy of Naksha trace and Jamabandi of the land in Khasra Nos.626, 627 and 628, allowed the appeal of the respondent No.5 partly, interfered with the order dated 23.01.2007 of the SDO, Bundi, approving the auction of the land in Khasra Nos.627 and 628 in favour of the appellant/ writ-petitioner and remitted the matter to the SDO, Bundi for passing a fresh order, after hearing both the parties.

¶18

The appellant/ writ-petitioner, having unsuccessfully appealed against this determination before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress. To reiterate, by the judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal, the learned Single Judge negated the assailment.

¶19

Mr. Mehrishi, the learned Senior Counsel has insistently argued that as the land auctioned purchased by the appellant/ writ-petitioner, is distinctly different from the one in Khasra No.626 allotted to the respondent No.5, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue erred in interfering with the order dated 23.01.2007 of the SDO, Bundi affirming his (appellant/ writ-petitioner) auction sale and remanding the issue for a fresh decision. As at no point of time, the auction sale vis-avis the land in Khasra No.626 had been alleged to be afflicted by any illegality whatsoever, and approval thereof had been granted by the SDO, Bundi, on a detailed scrutiny of the relevant aspects with reference to the concerned revenue records, the cancellation thereof in the appeal preferred by the respondent No.5, vis-a-vis a different plot, is patently illegal and

¶20

{4} DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.222/2013

¶21

thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge also needs to be interfered with. No other plea was taken in course of the arguments.

¶22

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/ writpetitioner and on a consideration of the materials on record, we do not feel persuaded to sustain this contention. As adverted to hereinabove, the auction of the land in Khasra No.626 was not sanctioned by the SDO, Bundi on the ground that the same was adjacent to the land of Kota UIT and Badgaon and was also close to the road of Karni Mata. That there was a difference in the area of the lands in Khasra No.626, as discernible from Jamabandi and Naksha trace thereof having the potential of generating unavoidable litigation, if not corrected in time, was also noticed. As would be evident from the decisions of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, the land in Khasra Nos.627 and 628 does abut the plot in Khasra No.626 auction purchased by the respondent No.5. The SDO, Bundi, however, did not entertain any reservation vis-a-vis this land unlike the land in Khasra No.626, though both the plots lay adjacent to each other. The Revenue forums, therefore, being of the view that unequal yardstick had been applied by the SDO, Bundi, construed it appropriate to interfere with the approval of the auction sale of land in Khasra Nos.627 and 628 in favour of the appellant/ writ-petitioner and remit the entire issues for afresh decision by the SDO, Bundi. This determination, to reiterate, has since been sustained by the learned Single Judge.

¶23

Having regard to the considerations on which the impugned decision has been taken, we are, in view of the constricted scope of scrutiny

¶24

{5} DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.222/2013

¶25

in an intra-Court appeal, inclined to conclude that no interference is called for. The learned counsel for the appellant, on being queried by us, has submitted that meanwhile acting on the approval accorded by the SDO, Bundi, his (appellant/ writ-petitioner) name has been duly entered in the relevant revenue records.

¶26

Be that as it may, as a direction has been issued to decide the matter after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, we are of the comprehension that no irreparable loss or prejudice would ensue to the appellant/ writ-petitioner thereby. It would, however, be open for the SDO, Bundi to pass appropriate orders in the interim, as may be deemed fit and proper, pending disposal of the proceedings, now to be undertaken by him.

¶27

The appeal, therefore, lacks in merit and is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected.

¶28

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.

¶29

Certificate:

¶30

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

¶31

KAMLESH KUMAR P.A.

Kundan Prasad v. B O R and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Prasad v. B O R and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Purshottam Nagar Vs Raj Hindi Granth Academy

Dr.Purushottam Nagar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

R P S C Ajmer Vs Suman Choudhary

Raj State Industrial Dev and Invest Vs Vineet Kumar Gupta and Another

Narendra Kumar Saini Vs University of Raj and Ors.

Villagers of Village Vs State Mines Departmentors