Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) FOR the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to issue formal notice to the respondents. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a resident of Thakur Pada, Bari, District Dholpur located in the vicinity of the land in khasra No. 2745 & 2789 comprising of two plots measuring 7 bighas 3 biswas and 5 bighas 2 biswas at Village Afzalpur, Tehsil Bari in the same district, is before is this Court seeking intervention in the instant petition presented as a public interest litigation to reverse the process of allotment of an area of 4 bighas 5 biswas of land of khasra No. 2789, which earlier belonged to the Education Department of the State in favour of respondent No. 6, which has meanwhile been conveyed to the respondent No. 7. According to the petitioner, two plots, referred to above, were initially recorded in the name of the Education Department in the revenue records. He has alleged that respondent No. 6 and his father, who were, at the relevant time, in service in the Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur as Lower Division Clerk had, by misusing their position, managed to get the plot of land measuring 4 bighas 5 biswas in khasra No. 2789 allotted in the name of respondent No. 6 in the year 1965, following which, necessary entries in the related revenue records were made. The petitioner has admitted as well that on completion of 10 years of such entry, khatedari rights were conferred on the respondent No. 6, and that, on 14.5.2010, he (respondent No. 6) also executed a sale deed pertaining to the same land in favour of respondent No. 7, in whose name consequential mutation has also been done. The petitioner has averred that as soon as he came to know of these developments, he made several requests to the local authorities of District Dholpur and when the same did not meet with any response, he got a legal notice dated 16.6.2014 served on the District Collector, Dholpur and District Education Officer (Secondary), Dholpur. As his initiatives did not yield any result, he has turned to this Court for redress. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while emphatically reiterating the above, has sought judicial intervention to cancel the allotment of the aforementioned area of land in khasra No. 2789 in favour of respondent No. 6 as well as the sale thereof in favour of respondent No. 7.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the averments made in the petition, we are left unpersuaded by the challenge, as laid in the present form. Not only, admittedly, the land involved had been allotted in favour of respondent No. 6 far back in the year 1965, following which, his name was entered in the related revenue records, as is evident from Annexure -2 to the writ petition, in absence of any convincing material available even to assume that such allotment had been illegal, we are even not prima facie satisfied on this imputation. Not only, the entry made in favour of respondent in the relevant revenue records carries with it an assumption of validity, rebuttable though, to reiterate, in absence of even any prima facie proof of violation of any rule or procedure, the indictment of the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 6 as illegal, cannot be sustained in the summary manner, as desired. Apart from the huge time lag in between, admittedly, the respondent No. 6 had meanwhile been conferred with khatedari rights in the land and he has further sold the same in favour of respondent No. 7 by a sale deed as far as back on 14.5.2010. The petition does not disclose any material to hold the sale transaction to be invalid as well. The petitioner has not disclosed either as to when he had come to learn of all the developments narrated in his petition. The legal notice admittedly is dated 16.6.2014. No basis in support of the imputation of illegality, as alleged, has been disclosed. Noticeably, the Education Department of the State is not before this Court alleging manipulations and foul play in the matter of allotment of its land in favour of respondent No. 6. The petitioner except stating that he is a resident of a place situated in the vicinity of the land in question has not disclosed further particulars of his to attach any extra weightage to his allegations of illegality in the matter of allotment of the land involved in favour of respondent No. 6 and invalidity of the sale made by him in favour of respondent No. 7. On the other hand, the entries in the relevant revenue records in favour of respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 7 vis -à -vis the said land prima facie demonstrates the legality of the process, as involved, culminating in the registration of their names in the concerned records of rights.;