- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Suhara Singh @ Sawara Singh S/o Kala Singh, against the order dated 28.05.2013 (Annex.9) passed by learned Board of Revenue in Appeal/3309/2013L.R./District- Sriganganagar, whereby the learned Board of Revneue dismissed the second appeal of the petitioner and upheld the concurrent orders of the learned S.D.O. and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar, Annex.5 dated 22.03.2010 and Annex.7 dated 06.05.2013 respectively. These proceedings have taken place upon a remand by this Court in earlier round of litigation in SBCWP No.4783/1991- Smt. Parmeshwari Wd/o late Sh. Harnam Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., decided on 05.02.1997 including the respondent No.4- Suhara Singh (petitioner herein), and the learned Single Judge of this Court while holding that all the three sons of late Sh. Kala Singh, were entitled to equal share in the surplus land of 25 Bighas u/s 13 (5) (b) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975. The learned Single Judge observed as under: - "Ordinarily this Court is slow in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It interferes only when there is gross injustice done and the initial order suffers from the basic infirmities. It must be stated that by an order at Annex.1 the authority has clearly held that all the three major sons of Kala Singh were entitled to the remaining 25 bighas of share which had to be distributed among them equally and they were asked to file joint form but no fault of the petitioner deceased Harnam Singh-original petitioner or his younger brother Amar Singh, who were not party to the proceedings from the beginning have been denied their just right by their father who did not inform about the order Annex.1 and sent his son Suhara Singh with whom he was staying. In the form only name of Suhara Singh and Harnam Singh were mentioned. Name of Amar Singh was not at all mentioned. The form did not bear the signature of Harnam Singh. Under the circumstances the authorities ought to have accepted the form presented by Suhara Singh only. The authorities ought to have issued notice to remaining brothers Harnam Singh and Amar Singh and only after service of notice the authorities could have passed the order. The submission of Mr. Kharlia was that the father may not like to discriminate among his sons. But that does not happen in line, their case is an example where it clearly appears that when father Kala Singh has clearly tried to discriminate in favour of Suhara Singh with whom he was staying. The authority did not appreciate this and without application of mind, in a haste, passed the orders at Annex.2 and 3. Hence, the impugned order at Annex.2, 3, 5 and 6 are required to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annex.2, 3, 5 and 6 are quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3 is directed to reconsider its decision by issuing notice to the legal representatives of Harnam Singh-original petitioner, Suhara Singh, respondent no.4, and Amar Singh and allot 25 bighas of land in equal shares to them. The authority shall do it within a period of six months from today."
(3.) AFTER the said remand, the allotment was, however, made by the learned S.D.O., Raisinghnagar, District: Sriganganagar, in favour of present petitioner, namely, Suhara Singh @ Sawara Singh, legal representatives of Harnam Singh, and third son Ajmer Singh @ Amar Singh was not put to any notice, nor he was allotted any land in the said surplus land of late Sh. Kala Singh. The said allotment in question of the surplus land between the family of two brothers, i.e. the present petitioner, Suhara Singh @ Sawara Singh and Harnam Singh, has been upheld by the learned Board of Revenue.;