K.S. Jhaveri, J. - (1.) By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has passed the following order which reads as under:- "This writ petition has been filed by Gram Panchayat Pholadpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, against order dated 20.08.1998 passed by Revenue Magistrate, whereby allotment of pasture land measuring in Khasra no.1 was ordered to be made in favour of respondent no.4 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Agricultural Purposes Land Allotment Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules 1970'). Factual matrix of the case is that respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh, who claimed to have served Indian Army and who further claims that he was subsequently discharged being physically not fit, applied for allotment of land under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1970. He claimed that a disabled army man can be allotted 25 bighas of irrigated land or 50 bighas of unirrigated land under the said Rules. The Revenue Department on receiving such application, gave directions to the District Collector, Alwar on 04.05.1974 to allot 25 bigha of land to respondent no.4 and seven other persons. Initially the respondent no.4 was allotted ten bighas of land in village Pholadpur vide order dated 26.09.1975 of the S.D.M., Behror. However, the District Collector, Alwar, cancelled the said allotment vide order dated 17.01.1976 and instead of land from Khasra No.359, allotted ten bigha of land from Khasra No.1 to respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh. Despite cancellation of allotment of land of Khasra No.359, respondent no.4 continued to be in possession of the said land. Naib Tehsildar, Neemrana, Tehsil Behror, directed his eviction under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956. Respondent no.4 filed appeal before Additional Collector against aforesaid order of eviction. Naib Tehsildar, however, filed a case under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 seeking cancellation of allotment made to respondent no.4 in Khasra No.359. Appeal was transferred to District Collector, who, vide order dated 08.10.1980 held that a pasture land could not be allotted under Rules of 1970 to respondent no.4 or any other person. According to Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 no further khatedari rights could be given in favour of respondent no.4 in a pasture land. The Secretary of the District Soldier Board, Alwar, in his evidence before the District Collector on 10.07.1980 maintained that name of the respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh was not there in the list of war disabled persons and no such information was received with regard to the respondent no.4 by the District Soldier Board, Alwar after 1962. The respondent no.4 therefore, could not be taken to be a war disabled person. The District Collector on accepting these pleas held that the respondent no.4 was not able to prove that he was rendered disabled in a war and he was not entitled to land under the Rules of 1970. The District Collector, Alwar, therefore vide order dated 17.10.1976, cancelled the allotment of land in Khasra No.359 of village Pholadpur made to respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Petitioner Gram Panchayat also made an application before the Revenue Appellate Authority for its impleadment as party. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 13.01.1981. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue and it directed that the Gram Panchayat should be heard by the Revenue Appellate Authority before passing any final order. It was thereafter that by order dated 24.06.1987 the Board of Revenue remanded the matter to Revenue Appellate Authority for deciding the case afresh after hearing all the parties. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.12.1995 decided all appeals and set aside the order dated 08.10.1980 of the District Collector, Alwar. It was thereafter that three revision petitions were filed by respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh against the order dated 05.12.1995 of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Board of Revenue decided all three appeals by common order dated 28.06.1996, whereby it held that allotment of land of Khasra No.359 could be legally cancelled and therefore the respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh was rightly proceeded against under Section 91 of the Act. It was held that the respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh had no legal right to take possession of the land of Khasra No.359. Respondent Sadhu Singh thereupon approached the Revenue Minister of the State, who, by impugned order, held that he was entitled to allotment of 25 bighas of land whereas he was allotted only ten bighas of land from Khasra No.1, therefore directed further allotment of remaining land. Hence this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Shri Virendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that allotment of land under the Rules of 1970 could be made only in favour of a landless person. The respondent no.4 was not a landless person. Even otherwise according to Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, khatedari rights could not accrue in favour of respondent no.4 in a pasture land. The District Collector, Alwar has rightly held that the respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh was not at all entitled to allotment of land under the Rules of 1970 because he could not prove his eligibility. Shri Ramavtar Sharma, the then Secretary, District Soldier Board, Alwar, was examined as a witness before the District Soldier Board, Alwar, on 10.07.1980. He stated that name of respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh was not there in the list of war disabled persons and no such information was received with regard to the respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh by the District Soldier Board, Alwar after 1962. A pasture land is meant for the purpose of grazing of cattle and therefore it could not be allotted without consent of Gram Panchayat. It was argued that the respondent no.4 was a criminal type of person and that he had 19 criminal cases registered against him for various offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, in many of which charge-sheets have been filed, which are pending before the Judicial Courts. Learned counsel further argued that even according to impugned order passed by Revenue Minister the respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh was not a landless person, which was prerequisite condition for allotment of land under the Rules of 1970. Respondent no.4 already had khatedari rights of land of 2.89 and 1.47 hectares. Even the Board of Revenue held the respondent no.4 to be trespasser and directed that in case he is found in possession over land in excess of ten bighas, he should be immediately dispossessed. Shri H.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh, opposed the writ petition and submitted that learned Revenue Minster has rightly come to rescue of respondent no.4 because the land was allotted to respondent no.4 under the Rules of 1970 after fully complying with the conditions enumerated therein. He reiterated the fact that the respondent no.4 was a war disabled person and as per the policy of the government he was entitled to allotment of 25 bighas of land. It was argued that with those observations learned Revenue Minister in his order directed allotment of land under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1970. The allotment of land to respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh is just, legal and valid. It is therefore prayed that writ petition be dismissed. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel, opposed the writ petition. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused material on record. Perusal of order passed by the then Revenue Minister indicates that this order was passed in a revision petition to overcome the difficulty created by cancellation of allotment of land of Khasra No.359 by the District Collector, Alwar, which order was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue. The then Revenue Minister had no authority to overturn the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Appellate Authority on judicial side as the remedy against those two orders was writ of certiorari and respondent no.4 did not chose to avail that remedy. He rather preferred to approach the Revenue Minister by filing revision petition, which revision petition was not maintainable under any provision of law. Besides, Revenue Minister himself in his order has mentioned that the petitioner was also a trespasser on the land measuring 0.02 hectare bearing Khasra No.26, land measuring 2.68 hectare bearing Khasra No.27, land measuring 0.1 hectare bearing Khasra No.701, land measuring 2.0 hectare bearing Khasra No.717 and land measuring 1.70 hectare bearing Khasra No.719 and Khasra No.703/2094. Apart from that, the respondent no.4 has trespassed over sizable chunk of the government land. The Revenue Minister also noted that as per the record of the Tehsildar, the respondent no.4 already had 2.8 hectare and 1.47 hectare land in his khatedari. In this view of the matter, the respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh cannot be, by any stretch of interpretation, said to be a landless person and therefore he was not eligible for allotment of land under the Rules of 1970. Besides the land in dispute being a pasture land could not have been allotted to respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh as such the land was not available for allotment even as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1970 read with Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Conduct of the respondent no.4 hardly justifies allotment of the land of Khasra No.359, although he has been allotted the land measuring ten bighas of land. This is because the respondent no.4 is a trespasser in several other government land. Besides, he was already allotted another ten bighas of land in Khasra No.1. He was not able to prove that he sustained disability during war. The impugned order dated 20.05.1998 passed by the Revenue Minister thus cannot be sustained in law and the same is set aside. The District Collector, Alwar is directed to ensure eviction of respondent No.4 Sadhu Singh from the pasture land within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. This also disposes of stay application."
(2.) Counsel for the appellant contended that the land was allotted to the appellant as per Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Agricultural Purposes Land Allotment Rules, 1970. However, while considering the matter, the learned Single Judge has given the following findings:- "In this view of the matter, the respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh cannot be, by any stretch of interpretation, said to be a landless person and therefore he was not eligible for allotment of land under the Rules of 1970. Besides the land in dispute being a pasture land could not have been allotted to respondent no.4 Sadhu Singh as such the land was not available for allotment even as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1970 read with Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Conduct of the respondent no.4 hardly justifies allotment of the land of Khasra No.359, although he has been allotted the land measuring ten bighas of land. This is because the respondent no.4 is a trespasser in several other government land. Besides, he was already allotted another ten bighas of land in Khasra No.1. He was not able to prove that he sustained disability during war. The impugned order dated 20.05.1998 passed by the Revenue Minister thus cannot be sustained in law and the same is set aside. The District Collector, Alwar is directed to ensure eviction of respondent No.4 Sadhu Singh from the pasture land within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him."
(3.) We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and there is no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order. Though the order is passed on 1.11.2012, it is really shameful that the Collector, Alwar has not taken any proceedings against the respondent No.4. In that view of the matter, we hope that the Collector, Alwar will act upon immediately and take action. The counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat is directed to inform the Collector about this order and will see that the order is implemented as directed by the learned Single Judge within one month from today. The order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed to the extent of 10 bighas of land which is pasture land.;