CW/8081/2007 of SEDA and ORS. Vs STATE and ORS. on 20 December 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPURORDER

Seda & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8081/07 )Dated:- 20.12.2007.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Mr. Varun Goyal , for the petitioner.

-BY THE COURT:

This writ petition is directed against order dated 11.11.07passed by the learned Board of Revenue in appeal No. ceiling /6987/2007/Bikaner, whereby an application preferred by theapplicants Mahendra Singh & ors. , respondents no. 3 to 5herein, for impleading them as parties respondents in theappeal, has been allowed.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners hereinpreferred an appeal against the order dated 21.3.75 passed bythe Sub Divisional Officer, Bikaner , whereby 297.1 bighas landbelonging to the petitioners' husband /father Shri Peeru Khanwas acquired by the State under the provisions of Rajasthan(Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973( inshort “the Act of 1973” hereinafter). The validity of said orderhas been challenged by the petitioners before the learned Boardof Revenue by way of appeal referred supra.

An application was preferred by the respondent nos. 3 to 5

for impleading them as party respondents in the appeal on theground that after acquiring the land as aforesaid vide orderdated 21.3.75, the land stands converted in Chak and thereafter,a notification for allotment of the said land was issued by theState Government and in pursuance thereof, the land standsallotted in the name of Shri Mahendra Singh s/o Surja Ram ,Devi Lal s/o Hanuman and Shopat Ram s/o Hanuman. It isfurther stated that they have already deposited the allotmentamount in the government treasury and allotment letter havealso been issued in their favour.

After due consideration, the learned Board arrived at thefinding that the applicants are necessary party , accordingly, theapplication preferred has been allowed by the learned Board asaforesaid. Hence, this petition.

It is contended by the learned counsel that in an appealpreferred against the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Bikaneracquiring the land under the provisions of the Act of 1973, the lisis between the land holder and the State Government, asubsequent transferee cannot be permitted to inter meddle inthe matter. In this regard , the learned counsel has relied upon adecision of this Court in the matter of Kesa vs. State ofRajasthan,(1987 RLW,1).

It is to be noticed that after determination of the ceilingarea, the excess land belonging to late Shri Peeru Khan was acquired vide order dated 21.3.75 passed by the Sub DivisionalOfficer, Bikaner. The appeal against the said order appears tohave been filed before the learned Board of Revenue in the year2007. No details of the subsequent events during the interveningperiod has been set out in the writ petition except that afteracquiring the land, the same was converted into Chaks and thesame stands allotted to the respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein.

It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of Section21 of the Act of 1973, the surplus land vested in the StateGovernment in terms of Section 16 may be allotted on prioritybasis amongst the landless laborers particularly, to themembers of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by suchauthority and in such manner to such extent and subject to suchterms and conditions as may be prescribed. In exercise of thepower conferred by Section 38 of the Act of 1973, the StateGovernment has framed the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling onAgriculture Holdings), Rules, 1973 which inter alia deals with theallotment of surplus land vested in the State.

In this view of the matter, if after acquiring the land asaforesaid, the same stands allotted to the landless person inconformity with the provisions of relevant statute then,obviously, a right is vested in them to hold the land and theycannot be deprived of the same without authority of law.Therefore, at this stage, if the petitioners after a lapse of more than 30 years have challenged the validity of the order dated21.3.1975 acquiring the land then,the subsequent allotteescannot be denied an opportunity of hearing inasmuch as theirrights are likely to be affected adversely by the decision of theappeal.

The decision of this Court in Kesa's (supra) relied upon bythe learned counsel for the petitioners has no bearing to thefacts and circumstances of the present case. The said caserelates to the transfer effected by the land holder pendingfixation of the ceiling area. After due consideration of theprovisions of Chapter III of the Rajasthan Tenanct Act, 1955( inshort "the Act of 1955" hereinafter) and the Rules madethereunder, in the said case, this Court opined that suchsubsequent transferee are not entitled for opportun9ity ofhearing int he proceeding under Chapter III of the Act of 1955.

In the instant case, the respondents nos. 3 to 5 are thepersons, who have been allotted the land by the StateGovernment, after acquiring the same vide order dated 21.3.75.Thus, opportunity of hearing cannot be denied to them.

I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passedby the learned Board of Revenue.

Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No orderas to costs.

(SANGEET LODHA),J.