Guman Singh v.

Rajasthan Revenue Board

Facts

The S.D.O. Malpura in consultation With the advisory committee by his order dated 14.6.89
(Ann. 7) allotted Siwai Chak land measuring 6 bighas 10 biswas comprising of khasra No.
556/2 situated in village Kutka in favour of respondent No. 6. On 29.8.79 petitioner Guman
Singh filed an application under rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules, 1970 before the
Additional Collector Tonk, challenging the impugned allotment of land on the ground that
respondent No. 6 was not a landless agriculturist, that on the other hand, he (petitioner) was
in cultivator possession of the land in question since Samvat year 2020 and as such the said
land was not an unoccupied land available for allotment and that no proclamation for inviting
applications for allotment of land was issued by the S.D.O., as per provisions of the
Allotment Rules, 1970. The petitioner prayed that the impugned allotment be cancelled. The
Additional Collector by his order dated 25.10.89 (Ann. 8) allowed that application holding
that as per entries in Khasra Parivartasheel of Samvat year 2046, Madho Singh, the father
of the petitioner was in possession of the said land since Samvat year 2020 to 2030, that
thereafter the petitioner was in cultivatory possession thereof from 2031 to 2034, that the
petitioner was a landless agriculturist and that without making an inquiry regarding
regularisation of the petitioner's possession on the disputed land, the impugned allotment
order in favour of the respondent No. 6 should not have been passed. He further held that the
father of respondent No. 6 was Khatedar of 18 bighas and 15 biswas of land including some
Nahri lands, which for calculation purposes was equivalent to 25 bighas 8 biswas of land and
respondent No. 6 being member of joint family was not a landless agriculturist. The
Additional Collector, therefore, cancelled the impugned allotment under R. 14(4). Aggrieved
by the said order respondent No. 6 filed on appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority,
Tonk, who by his order dated 24.11.95 (Ann. 9) allowed the appeal and set aside the order
(Ann. 8) of the Additional Collector and affirmed the allotment order (Ann. 7) on the ground
that the petitioner did not file any application under R. 20 for regularisation of his alleged
possession of the disputed land, that the respondent No. 6 was not a member of joint family
and living separately from his father, who had five sons and had 25 bighas 8 biswas land in
his Khatedari, wherein the respondent No. 6 had 1/6 notional share and, therefore, he was a
landless agriculturist within the meaning of S. 5(26)(A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He
further held that the petitioner's father Madho Singh was earlier allotted 4 bighas of land
comprising of same khasra No. 556 by the Advisory Committee, but after his death, the
petitioner sold the said land and that the petitioner was also not in continuous cultivatory
possession of land in question. The petitioner filed second appeal against the order of the
Revenue Appellate Authority under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the
Board of Revenue and the learned Member of the Board by his order dated 18.6.96 dismissed
the same summarily on the ground that the said appeal was legally not maintainable. Hence
this writ petition. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6.

Issue

This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred
challenging the legality & validity of the allotment order dated 14.6.89 (Ann. 7) passed by the
S.D.O. Malpura in favour of respondent No. 6 Ramesh Singh under the provisions of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (briefly
‘Allotment Rules, 1970’), the judgment dated 24.11.95 (Ann. 9) of the Revenue Appellate
Authority, Tonk, whereby the appeal filed by allottee was allowed & the order of Additional
Collector, Tonk passed u/R 14(4), cancelling the allotment order was quashed and allotment
order (Ann. 7) was restored and the judgment dated 18.4.96 (Ann. 10) passed by the
Revenue Board dismissing the second appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the
same was legally not maintainable.

RULE

Section 5 (26) (A) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Landless person" shall mean an agriculturist
by profession who cultivates or can reasonably be expected to cultivate land personally but
who does not hold any land, whether in his own name or in the name of any member of his
joint family, or holds a fragment

Judgement

The Collector under R. 14(4) set aside the order of allotment and the allottee-respondent
preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed and the
allotment order was affirmed. It is needless to mention that it is obligatory for the trespasser
to file an application under R. 20 of Allotment Rules for regularisation of his alleged old
possession over the government land before the Advisory Committee for consideration of his
claim for regularisation. Since neither any application under R. 20 of the petitioner was
pending before the Advisory Committee on the date of allotment 14.6.89 nor the petitioner
had filed any appeal against the allotment order, Anx. 7, before the competent authority
within the prescribed period of limitation, in my considered opinion, the petitioner was
neither aggrieved person nor had any locus standi to file second appeal against the order of
Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revenue. The facts of Magharam's
case are, therefore, at poles apart from the facts of the instant case and as such the said case
does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Besides this in Keshu Ram v. Board of Revenue,
a Division Bench of this Court has held that an application under R. 14(4) of the Allotment
Rules, 1970 is not an appeal under S. 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

CONCLUSION

The present writ has been allowed by the court as provision of Rajasthan Tenancy Act have
to be strictly be complied with the provisions of Revenue Court in the matter of temporary
relief. Similarly the cash security cannot be granted as a temporary Injunction id the receiver
is not appointed by the revenue inspector. The provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is
not applicable to this matter.