BALIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners challenge the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 5. 4. 90 (Annexure-10) and dt. 15. 10. 90 (Annexure-11 ).
(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that petitioners alleging themselves to be in possession of the land in question had applied for regularisation of the said land in their favour. It appears that land over which regularisation was claimed by the petitioners has been allotted 5 bigha of land in Khasra No. 1179 on application being made to respondent No. 5 Chhagan Lal on 19. 10. 77. At that time status of present petitioners were of trespassers. THE order of allotment in favour of Chhaganlal was later on affirmed by Board of Revenue on 4. 8. 87. During this period the present petitioners applied for regularisation of land in their possession as trespassers admeasuring 4 bighas of land in Khasra No. 1179. THE allotment was made in favour of the said Chhagan Lal on 19. 10. 77. In the first instance it was cancelled at the instance of present petitioners by the SDO because of the pendency of regularisation proceedings. Against the order cancelling the order made in favour of the Chhaganlal, he preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority to which the present petitioners were parties. THE said appeal of Chhaganlal was allowed on 25th Jan. 1982 holding that allotment made in favour of Chhaganlal to be valid and not liable to be set aside on the complaint made by the present petitioners. Aggrieved with the order of Revenue Appellate Authority dt. 25th Jan. 82 in those proceedings the present petitioners preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue through a detailed order dt. 4. 08. 1987 affirmed the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and found that there is no substantial gross violation of Allotment Rules 1970 warranting the cancellation of allotment made in favour of the Chhaganlal. Those proceedings have become final inter-parties. In these circumstances in the pending proceedings for regularisation of possession in favour of the present petitioners by making allotment of very same land in their favour were dismissed by the learned SDO by holding that no land is available and encroachment cannot be regularised in favour of the present petitioners. On appeal the order passed by SDO on 24. 03. 1987 was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 22. 11. 88 and the case was remanded back to the SDO for re-determining the question. Against the said order Chhaganlal preferred a revision before the Board. The Board referring two aforesaid decisions of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue found that once allotment made in favour of Chhaganlal has been found to be valid in those proceedings between parties. The possession of the very same land by way of encroachment cannot be regularised in their favour. It also referred to finding recorded by the SDO that the possession of the present petitioners was not continuous so as to entitle them to regularise even otherwise. This order of the Board of Revenue dt. 5. 4. 90 (Annexure-10) was made subject matter of review. The review application was also dismissed by order dt. 15. 10. 90 (Annexure-11 ).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that since he has made an application for regularisation prior to allotment having been made in favour of Chhaganlal, his rights to regularise cannot be denied by subsequent allotment made in favour of any person. Having carefully considered the aforesaid contentions I am unable to sustain the same. Firstly the trespassers cannot have any right to secure regularisation of his wrongful act. On merit an application under the relevant provisions of statutes which enables the competent authority to regularise such possessions instead of evicting trespassers from land in question. Such enabling provision of regularisation cannot be raised to the height of creating vested right in encroachers leaving the paramount owner of the lands remediless to deal with the trespassers in accordance with law. That would be putting a premium on wrongful act by treating it an obligation to regularise such acts which are illegal and void in origin. Apart from the aforesaid it is also apparent that allotment in favour of Chhaganlal has been subject matter of litigation between the very same parties in which vis a vis petitioners the allotment made in favour of Chhaganlal has held to be valid by a judicial pronouncement which binds the parties. The effect of such declaration of allotment made in favour of Chhaganlal to be valid being binding on the present petitioners, it cannot be nullified indirectly by considering the regularisation of the very same land. As a matter of fact after the proceeding of allotment in favour of Chhaganlal became final by orders inter-parties, prosecuting these proceedings is abuse of process of law. ;