RAM SINGH Vs. PARMOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by a D. B. of this Board in a case relating to the allotment of some land included in the village Charagah to an allottee in exchange for an equal area of land allotted to him from a certain Khasra No. as the land originally allotted was not considered fit for cultivation by the allottee. It was the contention of the appellants that the Collector had violated the provisions of sec. 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with the Rules framed thereunder in allotting the land out of the village pasture land. It was urged that the Collector had no jurisdiction to allot the pasture land entrusted to the Panchayat.

(2.) IN this connection, reliance was placed on the rule laid down in Nanuram vs. State of Rajasthan (1961 RRD 51 ). This case relates to village Barada which has a plot No. 9 measuring 204 bighas. The village was settled in the Smt. year 2008 and the entire area of this plot was entered in the settlement record as Charnot Mehfooz. At that time the village was in the Jagir and it appears that the Jagir-ars raised no objection thereto. Subsequently, however, he issued Pattas in respect of a portion of this field, measuring 74 bighas, in the names of his minor sons and a few other persons. On the strength of the Pattas mutations in the revenue records were claimed. At first, the Tehsildar refused mutations on the ground that the land in dispute was Charnot Mehfooz and, therefore, no cultivatory rights could be granted therein. On appeal, the Collector remanded the case to the Tehsildar for fresh decision whereupon the Tehsildar allowed mutation. This was followed by another appeal by the aggrieved party which was accepted by the learned Collector who set aside the order of the Tehsildar holding that the land in dispute was Charnot Mehfooz and could not be released or allotted for cultivation. Subsequently, however, it appears the Gram Panchayat at the instance of the Patta holders applied to the Collector that the area measuring 74 bighas having been brought under cultivation, fresh area bringing the total upto 204 bighas may be reserved for the village Charnot. Thereupon, the learned Collector allowed 74 bighas from Khasra No. 9 to be excluded from the Charnot and in lieu thereof permitted the area of some other plots measuring 82 bighas to be included in the village Charnot. This order was attacked in appeal before the learned Commissioner who dismissed the same holding that the Collector was competent to sanction this arrangement. This was followed by a revision petition before the Board of Revenue.

(3.) WE find that as it is the Government have not so far framed any rules for the conversion of pasture land into other categories. The only restriction imposed is that this will not be done without the express sanction of the Collector. This is, to our mind, a lacuna which may lead to grave consequences and we would, therefore, recommend to the Government to consider the desirability of framing rules for this purpose also.