V.G Palshikar, J.:— This special appeal is directed against the judgment in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 2464/85 decided by learned single Judge of this Court.
2. The original petitioner Akhaey Raj was an ex-Jagirdar having 1/3 share in Jagir of Village Kul Jodha, Tehsil Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur. Land belonging to the petitioner was resumed by the Govt. of Rajasthan under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 Act No. 16 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
3. It is provided by Section 14 of the Act that a Jagirdar who does not hold any Khudkasht land before 31st August, 1958 may apply for allotment of Khudkasht land. Section 16 empowers the Commissioner or the Collector as the case may be, to make order of allotment.
4. On 16th April, 1969, the Deputy Collector (Jagir), Jodhpur made an order granting Akhaeyraj Khudkasht land (see Ex. 1 page 16 of the original writ petition). Since then he is in cultivating possession of that land which has been thereafter mutated in his name.
5. Thereafter proceedings were commenced by the Deputy Collector to cancel the allotment made to the petitioner on the ground that his application was not in time. It was pointed out that it was within time and the grant of land to him is proper. The order made by the Deputy Collector cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner appellant was maintained in appeal, and ultimately the above writ petition was filed. The learned Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that no application was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time and it was therefore, proper that lease was cancelled. The question as regards the power of the Deputy Collector to cancel was not considered. It is this order which is impugned in this appeal.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that his application was within time as contemplated by Section 14 of the Act and the grant of land to him was proper, there was no power in the Deputy Collector to review the earlier grant. The power of review contemplated by Section 14A does not vest in Deputy Collector and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated for total lack of jurisdiction.
7. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State supported the orders of cancellation of allotment by referring to provision of Section 19B which provides for cancellation of allotment. However, a limitation is prescribed by Section 19B of the Act and the power is given to the State Govt. to effect cancellation. The State Govt. can itself cancel the allotment after getting the report of the Collector or such other officers not below rank of Collector made by such other authority. Obviously, the power under Section 19B cannot be exercised by Deputy Collector, the order passed by him is therefore totally without jurisdiction.
8. It is pertinent to note that the Govt. has nowhere claimed that the cancellation of allotment was made under Section 19B of the Act. The only reason given so far was that because the applicant, present appellant, never applied in time for the allotment, the allotment was cancelled. Even this submission cannot be accepted as the Govt. can never grant 140 Bighas of land to any person without their being application on his behalf on record. The resumption for non-availability of the application on record is, therefore, obviously illegal and liable to be quashed.
9. There is nothing on record to show that there is any other ground or power in the Govt. in exercise of which the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-appellant can be cancelled. The cancellation in the manner it is done is obviously without jurisdiction and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
10. In the result, the order passed by the officer cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner as also the orders confirming such cancellation are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. The appeal and the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms above. No order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
Comments