AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 whereby the appellant's assailment of the adjudication made by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Board") vide its order dated 10.7.2012 rendered in revision petitions no.138/03 and 140/03, has been rejected.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.Ranjeet Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr.Manish Shishodia, learned counsel for the respondents. The facts, in brief, necessary for adequately comprehending the rival arguments are that the appellant-writ petition and the private respondents, who as joint khatedars of the disputed land comprising khasra no.646 to 648 ad-measuring .6400 hectares submitted an application under section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act") before the Authorized Officer and Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Authorized Officer") expressing their willingness to surrender their rights therein with the intention of developing the same for the residential purposes. Vide order dated 6.10.2001, the Authorized Officer accepted the surrender and finding the land to be suitable for conversion for non-agricultural purposes, terminated their rights therein. As a consequence thereof, the land vested in the State Government under section 102-A of the Act free from all encumbrances and remained at the disposal of the UIT, Udaipur.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur contending that after the surrender, proportionate shares of the land ought to have been made available to the applicants and the same having not been done, the decision of the Authorized Officer was not sustainable on facts and in law. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur by taking note of the fact that the appellant-writ petitioner in terms of the registered sale deed dated 30.11.1996 held half share in the two plots separately with the private respondents, she was entitled to one third of the 15 plots drawn up by the UIT as per its scheme following the surrender. In this regard, this appellate forum also considered the allegation of the appellant-writ petitioner that she was being illegally and unfairly allotted only one plot acting on the representation of the private respondents that she was not entitled to any more plots, on the basis of a forged deed of partition/settlement. It was, thus, urged on her behalf that the denial of proportionate number of plots to her was in violation of Section 90B(6) of the Act.;