Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner, a trespasser on the land in question, claiming his possession over it, has challenged the judgment dt. 23rd of May 2014 (Annex.3) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, as well as order dt. 15th of April 2013 (Annex.2) passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar, and has prayed for a direction to the respondent Allotting Authority to decide his application for regularization of the land in his favour. The brief facts, essential for appreciating the afflictions of petitioner Gurditta Ram, as alleged by him in the petition are that he is in possession of the uncommand land situated at Stone No. 181/9, Killa No. 1 to 25 measuring 25 bigha, which was allotted to respondent No. 5 Veer Singh in the year 1981 being landless person but as he failed to deposit due instalments the allotment made in his favour was cancelled and the land was recorded as Government land on 04.01.1996. It is claimed by the petitioner that his application for regularization of the said land in his favour was pending before the competent authority despite that the Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Ganganagar passed an order in favour of respondent No. 5 to deposit due installment and on his depositing the due amount land was restored in his name vide order dt. 18th of June 2012. Against restoration order of the land in favour of respondent No. 5, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganar, which came to be dismissed vide order dt. 15th of April 2013. On dismissal of his appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, petitioner approached the Board of Revenue by filing an appeal but that too was dismissed affirming the orders passed by the revenue authorities below, which has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court under its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) MR . N.L. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously urged that the learned revenue Courts below have not examined the afflictions of the petitioner in right perspective. It is contended that the land in favour of original allottee respondent No. 5 was restored without conducting any enquiry regarding pendency of his application for regularization of land in his favour on which he was in possession and the Tehsildar, Karanpur has made a mention to that effect in his report dt. 03.01.2012 submitted to the Dy. Collector, Sri Vijay Nagar. Learned counsel also referred to Rule 21 -A inserted in the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 whereby in certain cases trespassers are allowed to retain possession subject to the extent of ceiling area applicable with certain riders. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 Veer Singh, has supported the impugned judgment and order and emphasized that the land was originally allotted to respondent No. 5 in the year 1982 but as the due instalments could not be paid in time allotment was cancelled, however, an application for restoration of the allotment of land was made on 01.03.2011 and the Sub Divisional Officer sought report from Tehsildar, who after receiving report from Halka Patwari submitted his report recommending restoration of land in favour of respondent No. 5. He further submits that the Sub Divisional Officer passed the order of restoration of allotment subject to his deposition of due amount and in compliance thereof the respondent has deposited the due amount with interest and as such, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment/orders. Mr. Trilok Joshi would contend that concurrent finding of both the Courts below warrants no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.;