- (1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated 28/4/2003 (Annex.5) passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, the order dated 29/6/2002 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was upheld by which the order of SDO Khajuwala cancelling the allotment made in favour of various persons by order dated 15/12/2001 was set aside.
(2.) LEARNED Addl. Advocate General, Mr. G.R. Poonia submitted that the land in question was declared as protected forest vide Notification dated 13/2/1986, however, by printing mistake the details of the land in question could not be published correctly and the said land despite being declared protected forest was allotted to some persons, which is apparently against the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. He further submitted that in the year 1999- 2000 the Revenue Authorities recorded the said land as 'Araji Raj' and also allotted the same to private cultivators, and all these proceedings escaped notice of Forest Department because the particulars of the land were not correctly mentioned in these proceedings and Forest Department was never issued any notice by any Authority or Court below. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. G.R.Poonia submits that since the Forest Department is not impleaded separately before the courts below or before the Board of Revenue, therefore, the fact that the land in question was reserved/protected forest under the Gazette Notification Annex.3 dated 13/2/1986 could not be brought before the courts below. He, however, submits that liberty may be granted to the present petitioner State of Rajasthan through Forest Department to move review petition before the Board of Revenue.
(3.) THE appeal before the Board of Revenue itself was filed by the State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Revenue Department, and it was the duty of the Tehsildar concerned, who represented the State of Rajasthan, to have brought this fact to the notice of Revenue Courts below and having failed in that, the present writ petitioner ­ State of Rajasthan, now represented by the Forest Department, does not deserve much of sympathy. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner State through Forest Department is given liberty to move the Board of Revenue with appropriate application and relevant documents and such application, if filed, may be considered by the Board of Revenue in accordance with law.;