- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, dated 8. 4. 64, whereby the order of the Addl. Collector, Bharatpur, dated 22. 1. 64 was partly set aside in proceedings under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the disputed land.
(2.) THE proceedings appear to have started with the report of the Patwari dated 19. 10. 62 whereupon a notice was issued to the petitioners on 30. 11. 62. THE same was, however, withdrawn by the order of the Tehsildar, dated 16. 5. 63 who held them to be landless tenants and observed that this area was not proposed to be included in the Charagah. This order was, subsequently challenged by the non-petitioners in the court of the Addl. Collector, Bharatpur, who by his order dated 20. 8. 1963, accepted the appeal of the non-petitioners and ordered the petitioners to be evicted from the land holding that it had been used as grazing land by the villagers since time immemorial, and further directed that a list should be prepared of the persons who had trespassed on this land and proceedings should be initiated against them under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It is averred that in pursuance of that order the possession was resumed by the Tehsildar on 7. 9. 63. However, as the perusal of the record shows, on 16. 9. 63, another notice was issued against the petitioners under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The reply to the notice was received on 30. 9. 63. Having considered the replies and the evidence produced by the petitioners, the learned Tehsildar came to the conclusion that the disputed land had been proposed for the Charagah and had been used as such from times immemorial and, further, that the petitioners had unlawfully brought the land under cultivation. In view of this finding, the Tehsildar ordered the eviction of the petitioners on 29. 11. 63. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Bharatpur, who by his order dated 22. 1. 1964, accepted the same and set aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 29. 11. 1963. It was observed by the learned Collector in his order that there were 233 cattle in the village which had an area of 642 bighas in addition to the disputed land measuring 45 bighas available for grazing by the cattle. It was felt by the Collector that it would not be desirable to evict the cultivators from the land under their] occupation which they had brought under cultivation. It was, further, observed by him that the proposals for the Charagah had not yet been received in the Collectorate and the boundaries of the Charagah had not yet been officially declared. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the Allotment Committee could allot this land to the petitioners in case they fulfilled the required conditions and ordered that the petitioners should not be evicted from this land until the Charagah was officially declared. It was, further, observed that the petitioners could also present their case before the Tehsildar in the proceedings relating to the constitution of the Charagah. This decision was, however, not found acceptable by the non-petitioners who filed a second appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority by his order dated 8. 4. 64, partly accepted the appeal. He upheld the order of the learned Collector with regard to the allotment of land to the petitioners but held that the petitioners could not be reinstated in the land from which. they had been once evicted, in pursuance of the order of the Additional Collector dated 20. 8. 63 (wrongly recorded as 26. 5. 63 ). The present revision petition has been filed against the above order. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the assumption of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that the petitioners had been dispossessed in pursuance of the order dated 20. 8. 63 is wrong and without any basis and, therefore, the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is not maintainable being a perverse finding of fact. He contends that the report of the Girdawar, dated 7. 9. 63 on the basis of which these findings have been arrived at was founded on faked proceedings. This is sought to be concluded from the narration of the report according to which the petitioners were not present at the time of the recovery of possession. It is argued that if the possession had been resumed, it would not have been necessary to issue a second notice on 16. 9. 63 and to go through the whole gamut of the procedure under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Even if it may be accepted for the sake of argument that the proceedings of 7. 9. 63 conducted by the Girdawar for the resumption of the land were genuine, it would appear that the petitioners had re-occupied the land soon after thereby necessitating renewed action for their eviction in accordance with sec. 91. It is asserted that the impugned order is ambivalent in so far as it opens the way for the allotment of land to the petitioners on the one hand, while on the other hand, it directs that they should not be reinstated in the disputed land. It is urged that there is no question of reinstatement of the petitioners in the present case. The proceedings having been initiated under a notice in accordance with sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the question is whether or not they should be evicted from the land under their possession. The order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, is not in concurrence with the facts of the case This contention must prevail. There is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the non-petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate that the trespass has been committed in the Charagah land and it should not, therefore, be allowed to be legalised, As is apparent from the order of the Collector, the Charagah has not yet been demarcated in this village and there is plenty of land available for the Charagah required for the number of cattle belonging to this village. The finding of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority to the effect that the petitioners had been evicted from the land is obviously not in conformity with the facts of the case. Had this been so, it would not have been necessary to issue another notice on 16. 9. 63. It is also on record that on 10. 2. 64, the Tehsildar ordered that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the land. This would show that the petitioners were in possession of the land on 10. 2. 64. This knocks at the basis of the argument of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority setting aside the order of the Collector to the effect that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the disputed land, on the ground that they had already been evicted therefrom. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the impugned order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority cannot be sustained as it is not based on a proper appreciation of the facts of the case. The State Government has issued instructions to regularise occupation of land by unauthorised persons with a view to giving relief to the farmers if they fulfil certain conditions. It is felt that while one hand, it would encourage the farmers to develop their lands, on the other, it would bring increased land revenue from these tracts if the unauthorised occupations are legalised. The order of the Collector which has been partly reversed by the impugned order was obviously made taking into consideration this policy of the Government and the rules relating to the allotment of land to the landless persons as well as the constitution of the Charagahs. In ordering that the petitioners should not be reinstated in the disputed land, the Learned Revenue Appellate Authority has manifestly fallen into an error of fact and law. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting this revision petition and setting aside the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority in so far as it relates to the reinstatement of the petitioners. This will restore the order of the Collector, dated 28. 1. 1964. .;