NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) The prayer in the present petition is to quash the order dated 24.04.1996 (Annx. 5) passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the allotment order dated 26.11.1993 (Annx. 4) passed by the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner.
(2.) Father of the petitioners, Panne Khan, was a temporary tenant of the land comprising in Khasra No.100/3, village Dantor measuring 25 bighas in the Samwat year 2012. The father of the petitioners applied for permanent allotment of the above mentioned land. Out of the 25 bighas of land, 7 bighas was allotted to him on permanent basis by the allotting authority vide order dated 27.12.1975 (Annx.2). A perusal of the said allotment order shows that the decision with respect to the remaining 18 bighas of land was deferred. Meaning thereby, the application with respect to the permanent allotment of the remaining land measuring 18 bighas was kept pending. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.11.1984 (Annx.3) another 4 bighas land out of the remaining 18 bighas were regularized in favour of Panne Khan in Square 1/33 of Chak 12 SMD. Once again it was mentioned in the order that the allotment of the remaining land will be made later on. Hence, the application for permanent allotment with respect to the remaining 14 bighas land was further kept pending till the rectangularisation of the entire Khasra No.100/3 was completed. Panne Khan, however, died on 10.04.1989. According to the petitioners, they being the sons of Panne Khan continued to remain in possession of the remaining 14 bighas of the land of earlier Khasra No.100/3 along with 11 bighas already allotted in the name of Panne Khan and suddenly, without any notice to them, an order dated 26.11.1993 (Annx.4) was passed by the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner qua the remaining 14 bighas of the land, which was re-numbered as Squre No.1/25 of Chak 14 SMD and the same was allotted in favour of respondent No.4-Ratan Kanwar widow of late Gordhan Singh Rajput, as erstwhile Jagirdar. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by way of the revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on two grounds both on the ground of maintainability and on merits. While dismissing the revision on maintainability, the Board of Revenue held that no revision lies against the order under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (Concession for Khudkast in Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1963, and while dismissing the same on merits, the Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that the temporary tenancy of Panne Khan was not renewed and it had come to an end. No application had been filed for the allotment of the said land, hence, the petitioners could not object to the allotment of the land to a third party.
(3.) While challenging the order dated 24.04.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the allotment order dated 26.11.1993 passed by the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner in favour of the respondent No.4 Ratan Kanwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that the Board of Revenue had ignored the provisions of law. Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (Concession for Khudkast in Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1963 provides that the Rajasthan Colonisation (General Colony) Conditions, 1955 framed under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act will apply in all allotments of the land made under these rules and since the Colonisation Act governs the allotment, a revision will lie under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, with respect to the merit it was submitted that the allotment of the remaining land in favour of the petitioners' father was kept pending for want of specifications of the land after rectangularisation and hence, there was no need for fresh application. The land could not have been allotted to someone else during the pendency of the consideration for allotment to the petitioners.;