- (1.) THESE special appeals are directed against the order dated 25.5.2012 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions and affirming the order passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 22.7.2002.
(2.) THE factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the Sub Divisional Officer, Nohar made allotment of small patch of land to the petitioners who were having cultivatory possession over the land in murabba No.49/41, kila No.16 to 25. A challenge to the allotment was given by the respondent No.7 with assertion that the land allotted was not a small patch as per provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1975"). The appeals came to be accepted vide judgment dated 27.10.1998 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The revision petitions preferred to challenge the aforesaid before the Board of Revenue by the petitioners, too came to be rejected on 22.7.2002. The review petitions preferred before the Board were also rejected on 18.5.2004. The petitioners, thus, preferred petitions for writ before this Court with assertion that the land allotted to the petitioners if was not a "small patch", then that would have been considered as a "medium patch". Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the count that the contention aforesaid was never raised by the petitioners before the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, as such cannot be permitted to agitate before this Court while invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In appeals, the submission of counsel for the petitioners is that the issue sought to be agitated before learned Single Judge was purely a question of law and, therefore, the same should have been considered on merits. We do not find any force in the argument advanced. From perusal of the facts averred in the writ petitions it reveals that the allotting authority by dividing a chunk of land measuring 15.04 bighas allotted land to the petitioners as "small patch". As per Rule 2(xxvi) "small patch" means a piece of land measured upto 5 bighas of irrigated land and 10 bighas of unirrigated land. In the cases in hand a device was adopted to break a chunk of land in two parts to allot the same in the name of small patch. No such allotment could have been made as per provisions of the Rules of 1975. So far as the issue regarding allotment of land by treating the same as "medium patch" is concerned, that has been rightly not entertained by learned Single Judge being not agitated at any stage of litigation. Suffice to mention here that the process of allotment for a medium patch is different than the procedure prescribed for allotment of small patch, as such, the same process could have not been subjected to adjudication while examining allotment of land as small patch. It is well settled that the scope of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is quite narrow and that can be exercised only in following circumstances:- "(i)Erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction. (ii)Refusal to exercise jurisdiction. (iii)Error of law apparent on the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law. (iv)Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. (v)A patent error in procedure, and there is a perverse finding which is based on no evidence or material, or resulting in manifest injustice.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge does not find any such eventuality in the cases in hand, and rightly so, as the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority considered the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners in lucid. The findings given by these authorities are based on adequate consideration of facts and law. These appeals, thus, are devoid of merit, hence dismissed.;