Dismissed

Panna Singh S/O Chhotu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2022CW/19597/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order setting aside a land allotment to private respondents. The Court held that the impugned order involved an enquiry on possession and rules compliance which was remanded to the Authority, requiring no interference by this Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order was dismissed as no interference was required where the matter was remanded for enquiry on possession and allotment rules.

Panna Singh S/O Chhotu Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19597/2018

¶3

Panna Singh S/o Chhotu,

¶4

Hema Singh S/o Chhotu,

¶5

Gopal Singh S/o Chhotu, All are R/o Nolakha Teh. And Dist. Ajmer

¶6

Harlal S/o Chhotu, (died pending writ petition); through his legal heirs;

¶7

4/1. Bhanwari D/o Harlal W/o Hera Singh R/ Village Kesharpura, Tehsil & District Ajmer.

¶8

4/2. Chidiya D/o Harlal W/o Ramdev, R/o Village Hathipatta, Tehsil & District Ajmer.

¶9

4/3. Teeja D/o Harlal W/o Gopal Singh, R/o Village Parbatpura, Tehsil & District Ajmer.

¶10

4/4. Methi D/o Harlal W/o Tarachand, R/o Village Parbatpura, Tehsil & District Ajmer.

¶11

4/5. Mamta D/o Harlal W/o Sawant Singh, R/o Village Mayapur, Tehsil & District Ajmer

¶12

Ladu Singh S/o Chhotu, R/o Nolakha Teh. & Dist. Ajmer.

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Ajmer

¶16

Allotment Officer Cum Sub Devisional Officer, Ajmer

¶17

Smt. Bhanwari W/o Ladu Adopted Wife Of Gulab, R/o Tejaji Chowk, Kotda Teh. And Dist. Ajmer

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nikhil Saini, Adv.

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶21

01/09/2022

¶22

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal filed under Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 02.12.2011.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners after decision of the Board of Revenue, filed a review petition and review

¶24

(2 of 3) [CW-19597/2018]

¶25

petition has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 06.04.2018.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Revenue Appellate Authority, while passing the order dated 02.12.2011, had not committed any illegality and it had rightly set aside the allotment of land in favour of the private respondents, vide allotment order dated 10.06.1984.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that necessary direction was also given by the Revenue Appellate Authority of making entry in the Revenue Record in favour of the petitioners.

¶28

Learned counsel further submitted that possession of the disputed land has always been with the petitioners and as such allotment, in favour of the private respondents, was prima-facie illegal and contrary to the allotment Rules.

¶29

Learned counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue has wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-State and remanded the matter back to Tehsildar, Ajmer to enquire about the possession in respect of the disputed property and further the allotment was to be examined in view of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Agriculture Allotment Rules), 1970 (in short ‘the Rules of 1970’).

¶30

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had pointed out the inherent defect in the order of Board of Revenue and as such they preferred review petition before the Board of Revenue but the Board of Revenue has also dismissed the review petition in a mechanical manner.

¶31

Learned counsel submitted that the site inspection report filed as Annex-6 with the writ petition, clearly shows that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land.

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

[CW-19597/2018]

¶34

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

¶35

This Court finds that the order of Revenue Appellate Authority has been set aside by the Board of Revenue while allowing the appeal and the matter has been remanded back to the Authority concerned and as such the Tehsildar, Ajmer has been entrusted with the enquiry in respect of possession of the land and further the allotment of land in favour of the respondents is to be examined, as per Rules of 1970.

¶36

This Court finds that adequate opportunity will be given to all the parties concerned by the Tehsildar, Ajmer to prove their possession as well as the issue of allotment of land will also be considered, as per Rules of 1970 and accordingly no prejudice is caused to the petitioners and liberty is available to the petitioners to place on record the facts relating to their possession on the disputed property and to question the allotment of land to the private respondents.

¶37

This Court finds that no error has been committed by the Board of Revenue while passing the order impugned and as such no interference is required to be made by this Court.

¶38

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶39

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶40

Monika/15

Panna Singh S/O Chhotu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panna Singh S/O Chhotu v. State of Rajasthan

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

Smt. Puran Devi W/O Sh. Bharosi Lal Vs Mukesh S/O Mangilal

Firm M/S Omprakash Pramod Kumar Vs Ram Singh and Ors.

Om Prakash Vs Municipal Board Sambharlake Ors.

Radhey Shyam Vs Komal and Ors.

Kishan Lal Andors Vs Smt Geeta Bai Andanr

Kastur Chand Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.