BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 7. 9. 2000 (Annexure/4) in a revision which was filed by one Dana Ram. The facts which are not disputed that said Dana Ram, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, was allotted the land in question on 21. 11. 75 against which many persons objected to and demanded cancellation of the said allotment which proceedings culminated in favour of Dana Ram. The Additional Collector vide his order dt. 21. 9. 93 (Annexure/3) upheld the order made in favour of Dana Ram. The objections raised by Sheopat Ram, the present petitioner, were rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 13. 2. 97. Those orders have become final and no more in doubt. It appears that after allotment of land in question made in favour of said Dana Ram, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, on 21. 11. 75, the same was again allotted in favour of Sheopat Ram on 8. 2. 83 almost after eight years. The allotment made in favour of Dana Ram was up held by the Additional Collector after hearing the objection filed thereto. The said allotment was never cancelled. The entries were made in favour of present petitioner on 8. 2. 83. As the said Dana Ram, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, who was allottee to the land in question much prior to the present petitioner and petitioner has continued in possession contrary to the allotment made in favour of the said Dana Ram. Therefore, he moved an application before the Tehsildar u/s. 183 B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") for cancelling the retention of possession by Sheopat Ram. The said application u/s. 183 B was accepted by the Tehsildar. However the appeal against the said order of Tehsildar was accepted by the Additional Collector (Adm.) Hanumangarh on 21. 9. 93. Against which revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue by Dana Ram. The Board of Revenue found that since allotment made in favour of Dana Ram on 21. 11. 75 and in pursuance of which Patta was also issued on 7. 10. 78 and thereafter the allotment was made in favour of Sheopat Ram only on 8. 2. 83. Inspite of the order of the Assistant Collector dtd. 12. 11. 89 any right or possession or interest in favour of Sheopat Ram could not be conferred, in view of pre-existing right of Dana Ram objections to which were raised by Sheopat Ram and were rejected by the Revenue Courts. In view thereof, the application of the said Dana Ram u/s. 183 B against retention of possession by Sheopat Ram cannot be defeated because subsequent allotment cannot be considered to be lawful under which he could lawfully retain possession and he is liable to be evicted u/s. 183 B by summary procedure. It, therefore set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh and allowed the said application. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since an allotment has been made in his favour by the Competent Officer he cannot be deemed to be a trespasser and therefore, proceedings u/s. 183 B against him are incompetent. Only remedy of Dana Ram according to him would be to file a regular suit for eviction. He however does not challenge, and cannot challenge, that in view of pre-existing allotment in favour of Dana Ram, subsequent allotment in his favour cannot confer on him valid title. The contention in my opinion cannot be sustained in the context of Section 183 B of the Act of 1955. The Act of 1955 has been amended to provide additional safeguard to the interest of the members of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe to protect their possession and interest on the land allotted to them by providing for adopting summary procedure for evicting anybody from the land held lawfully by any member of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe, where the occupant is not entitled to retain such possession and that the same cannot be denied to them by compelling to file a regular suit for recovery of possession from those whose possession is not lawful. The contention of learned counsel that in ordinary sense when the petitioner was occupying the land under the authority of Collector, he could not be treated as trespasser, in my opinion cannot be accepted in the context of Section 183 B of the Act of 1955. It may be noticed that sub-section (1) of Section 183 B merely does not refer to a case of trespasser who has encroached upon the land forcibly but it also refers to a person who has taken or retained possession without lawful authority of land held by a tenant belonging to Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe. Undoubtedly a person who has been allotted land subsequent to the allotment made in favour of member of scheduled caste, which subsists, would not confer any title or interest on the subsequent allottee to retain possession thereunder and enjoy the fruits of possession of such land against the interest of prior allottee. The prior allottee being a member of scheduled caste is entitled to secure possession from such subsequent allottee whose continued possession is without lawful authority of law. Instead of being relegated to file a regular suit for recovery of possession from the person who is in possession without lawful authority, under Section 183 B, the possession could be recovered by the holder of the land from subsequent allottee by filing the application u/s. 183 B for evicting the person who is retaining possession without lawful authority. The object of enacting Section 183 B is apparently to provide speedy remedy by resorting to summary proceedings for restoring possession to a member of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe who has been so deprived of it without lawful authority. The meaning of expression used in Section 183 B takes its color from the context and object with which Section 183 B has been enacted.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY this petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. .;