Dismissed

Narpat Singh v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 Feb 2015CW/1219/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue order dismissing a second appeal against land allotment for a school was dismissed. The court held that the Board's factual report negating the catchment area claim was not perverse and no interference under Article 227 was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in limine. Board of Revenue's order dated 10.10.13 is affirmed.

Narpat Singh Vs Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

NARPAT SINGH VS. BOARD OF REVENUE, RAJASTHAN, AJMER & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1219/14)

¶3

Dated:- 17.2.14.

¶4

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

¶5

Mr.Shanker Rajpurohit, for the petitioner.

¶6

This writ petition is directed against order dated 10.10.13 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby a second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein under Section 76 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ( for short “the Act”) against the order dated 12.4.10 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11.8.08 allotting the land to Department of Education, Government of India, for the purpose of Government Primary School under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Condition for Allotment of Unoccupied Agricultural Land for the Constructions of School, Colleges, Dispensary, Dharamshala, Other Building for Public Utility) Rules, 1963 ( for short “the Rules of 1963”), stands dismissed.

¶7

The relevant facts are that District Collector, Jodhpur vide order dated 11.8.08 issued under the Rules of 1963 allotted 2 bighas land out of 16.01 bighas land comprising khasra no.191 of village-Dhandia to the Department of Education for the purpose of Government Primary School, Dhandia. The legality of the allotment made was questioned by the petitioner by way of writ petition being No.541/09, which stood dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 22.1.09 in following terms:

¶8

¶9

“It is the prerogative of the State where the school is to be opened and where the school building is to be constructed. In this regard, if any grievance is raised by the public, it is to be decided by the State, therefore, no order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be passed in this matter.

¶10

The writ petition is dismissed. However, upon filing representation by the villagers, it is expected that respondents will decide the same expeditiously.”

¶11

It is stated that the villagers made the representation to the District Collector, Jodhpur questioning the suitability of the land for construction of a school building. At the same time, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Act before the RAA, Jodhpur, questioning the legality of order dated 11.8.08 issued by the District Collector, Jodhpur allotting the land for the construction of the school building as aforesaid. After due consideration, the appeal was dismissed by the RAA as barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 76 of the Act, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land allotted for the purpose of school is part of catchment area of local water source Kherali Nadi (Pond) and therefore, the same was not available for allotment for any other purpose. Learned counsel submitted that keeping in view the railway line and public way passing through the land adjoining the land comprising khasra no.191, the disputed land allotted is unsafe for the purpose of construction of school building. Learned counsel urged that the order passed by the Board of Revenue ignoring the factual position at the site, is not

¶13

¶14

sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶15

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and

¶16

perused the material on record.

¶17

It is to be noticed that the legality of allotment made was questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the land allotted forms part of the catchment/high flood area of local water source Kherali Nadi and therefore, the same was not available for allotment for any other purpose. It is pertinent to note that the Board of Revenue had obtained a factual report from a committee consisting of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Jodhpur and Sub Divisional Officer, Luni after local investigation, wherein it was found that the land does not form part of the catchment area and construction of the school building at the place is not likely to adversely affect the water flow. In the considered opinion of this court, the findings arrived at by the Board after verification of the actual position at the site, cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, this court having already declined to interfere with the allotment order issued by the District Collector for the reasons assigned as noticed above, no case for interference by this court is made out.

¶18

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.

¶19

(SANGEET LODHA),J.

¶20

Aditya/-

Narpat Singh v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narpat Singh v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Smt. Bhawna Mod and Ors.

Kuiya Ram @ Kuya Ram Mali Vs State and Ors.

Rajan Setia Vs Union of India and Anr.

Firm Darshan Kumar Satish Kumar, Vs Surjeet Singh and Ors.

Pooran Singh Vs J.D.a., Jodhpur and Anr.

Virendra Kumar Patel and Anr. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.