MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dated 8.7.1981 (Annex. 16) passed by the respondent No.2, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, the order dated 18.5.1981 (Annex. 15) passed by the respondent No.3, Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the order dated 10.9.1980 (Annex. 14) passed by the respondent No. 4 Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar may be quashed.
(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is residing in Chak No. 39 P.S. Tehsil Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar since 1946 and he is an agriculturist by profession. THE petitioner's brothers-in- laws, Ajaib Singh and Hari Singh sons of Shri Bhagwan Singh are also the permanent residents of Chak No. 39 P.S. and are agriculturists by profession. THE petitioner was landless person, therefore, he used to cultivate the lands of other persons in Chak No. 39 P.S. and in village Dulrasar, which is adjacent to Chak No. 39 P.S. by taking the land on lease. Ajaib Singh, brother-in-law of the petitioner took for temporary cultivation the land in Murbba No. 31 measuring 24.10 bighas situated in village Dulrasar in the year 1958 and similarly his another brother-in-law Hari Singh took for temporary cultivation the land in Murbba No. 32 measuring 25 bighas situated in village Dulrasar. Both these lands remained in possession of his brothers-in-laws Ajaib Singh and Hari Singh upto 1967. The petitioner used to cultivate these lands jointly with his brothers-in-laws. In the year 1968, the petitioner took both these lands for temporary cultivation in his own name and the same was allotted to him as a temporary tenant upto 1971. On coming into force of the Rajasthan Colonisation, (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment) (Amendment) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1970') with effect from 16.7.1970, the petitioner presented an application before the Tehsildar, Raisingh Nagar for permanent allotment of these lands in his favour. On the application filed by the petitioner along with his affidavit being a landless person certain enquiries regarding eligibility of the petitioner were made and Patwari of the concerned Circle reported that the concerned Khasra Nos. 31 and 32 were in the cultivatory possession of the brothers-in-laws of the applicant from 1958 to 1967 and there-after it was remained in the cultivatory possession of the applicant. The Tehsildar also made enquiry from Ajaib Singh and Hari Singh and he confirmed this fact and it was also agreed that they have no objection if the land is allotted to the petitioner. The Tehsildar then prepared his report on 13.7.1971 stating that the land in question remained in the cultivatory possession of the brothers-in-laws of the petitioner from 1958 to 1967 and thereafter it was in the cultivatory possession of the petitioner, who is a landless person and cultivates the lands personally and resides in the Chak and there are no Govt. dues against him. On 28.8.1971 the Tehsildar Raisingh Nagar took an additional affidavit of the petitioner and submitted the papers to the Collector, Sri Ganganagar along with his report dated 28.8.1971. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar after perusing the record, allotted the land of Murabba Nos. 31 and 32 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Land Allotment & Sale) Rules, 1956 by his order dated 8.10.1971 to the petitioner. The petitioner was in possession of the land and paid regular rent as well as instalments of the land as and when fell due and no breach was committed by him. In 1974 the Naib Tehsildar (Leave Reserve) Ganganagar presented an application before the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar under sections 11 and 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner is against the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to file a reply in connection with the application filed against him on 15.1.1975 and to produce oral or documentary evidence in his favour. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice and submitted that no breach of any of the rules and conditions has been committed by him and he has deposited all the dues/instalments and he is not guilty of furnishing false information or otherwise. Therefore, the action intiated against the petitioner should be dropped. The another proceeding pending with the Additional Collector for about 5 years. However, the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on 10.9.1980 by the order of the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar. The Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar took the view that the petitioner was in possession of the land since 1968 while the land should have been with him before, 1968 entitling him for a permanent allotment under the Rules of 1956. This order was challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the Revenue Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Additional Collector vide its order dated 18.5.1981. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and the same was rejected on 8.7.1981. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging all the three orders. No return has been filed by the respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
(3.) MR. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the land in question was initially allotted to the brothcrs-in-laws of the petitioner but he was cultivating the land on their behalf and from 1968 he was cultivating the land in his own rights and this fact is apparent from the report of the Tehsildar. Learned counsel submitted that in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner he has not mentioned that since 1968 he is in possession of the land, but nonetheless the Patwari has made a report (Ex.3) dated 8.7.78 in which he has clearly mentioned that this 50 bighas of land was in the temporary cultivation of the brother- in-laws of the petitioner upto 1967 and thereafter the petitioner was in possession thereof and after considering all these facts consciously the Collector has allotted the land in question in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not obtained the allotment by giving any false information. All these facts were very much in the knowledge of the Collector, which is evident from the report of the Patwari and the Tehsildar. As against this Mr. Dave, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State, submitted that the allotment could not have been made to the petitioner as according to the Rules a permanent allotment can only be made to the persons who were in possession of the land in question, prior to 1960, but the petitioner was in possession of the land in question from 1968 only, therefore, the allotment itself was bad. It is true that according to the Rules, the permanent allotment could only be made to the persons who were in possession of the land in question prior to 1960. But the fact remains that this land was not free for grant as this land was in the temporary allotment of the brothcrs-in-laws of the petitioner and he was in possession of the land with their permission from the year 1958. This fact was in the conscious knowledge of the allotting authority i.e. the Collector, Sri Ganganagar on the basis of the report submitted by the Patwari as well as the Tehsildar, which is evident from Ex. 3 and Ex. 6. Since the allotting authority has acted on the basis of the official record submitted before it and all these facts were clearly mentioned in the report that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question from 1958 on behalf of his brothers-in-laws and the petitioner was in possession of these lands in his own rights from 1967-68. After considering all these facts, this was allotted to the petitioner as a temporary cultivation lease, by the Collector. In view of this matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner has obtained the allotment by giving false information thereby attracting the provisions of section 11 of the Act. Even otherwise also no body else could have legitimate claim over this land for allotment as even if the land has not been allotted to the petitioner the legitimate claimants for permanent allotment of this land could only be the brothers-in-laws of the petitioners, i.e. Ajaib Singh and Hari Singh. Both of them have also given this land to the petitioner being their brothcrs-in-laws (gainer) and also have no objection that this land can be allotted to the petitioner for temporary cultivation in the year 1968 and they have not objected the allotment of land to the petitioner on permanent basis. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has furnished any false information for which action under section 11 can be initiated. Ought we know the allotting authority might have been impressed by the fact that though the land in question was under the temporary cultivation of Ajaib Singh and Hari Singh, brothers-in-laws of the petitioner but physically it was with the petitioner who was cultivating the land from the year 1958, this fact might have persuaded the allotting authority to allot the land in question to the petitioner on permanent basis as he was in physical possession of the land in question since 1958 on behalf of his brothers-in-laws. Therefore, in this back-ground we are of the opinion that the view taken by all the courts below is not correct as the petitioner is not guilty of obtaining the allotment by furnishing false information or deliberately suppressing the facts. ;