M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 23.6.2000, 9.1.2001 and 17.6.2002.
(2.) Learned counsel submits that petitioner, being a member of armed forces, was allotted land for agricultural purposes under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970. After the allotment of land, it was cultivated through a person to whom it was let out. The cultivation was not required to be by the petitioner in person in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with section 46(f). The respondents, however, initiated proceedings for cancellation of allotment of land after lapse of 25 years. The petitioner was served with a notice and, after hearing him, order of cancellation of allotment was passed. The petitioner challenged the order of the District Collector by maintaining an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which dismissed the appeal without considering any of the issues raised therein. He thus preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue but it was also dismissed. The petitioner approached the Board of Revenue again by way of filing a review petition which was then allowed. A challenge to the order on review petition was made by the State by maintaining a writ petition, which was allowed and, accordingly, order of the Board of Revenue on review petition was set aside. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this court, where interference in the order passed by the Single Bench was not made but liberty was given to challenge the order of the Board of Revenue dismissing the appeal thus present writ petition has been field
(3.) Learned counsel submits that as per the terms of allotment, petitioner has cultivated more than 50% land in the first year and 100% in the second year. He cultivated it though in few years out of first ten years, cultivation may not have been done but then it does not result in cancellation. As per the Rules of 1970, cultivation is required only for first two years i.e. 50% of the land in the first year and 100% in the second year. The petitioner produced "Khasra Girdawari" to show cultivation of land in the first year followed by cultivation in the second year but ignoring the aforesaid, order of cancellation of allotment of land has been passed against the petitioner. It has further been ignored that as per section 46(f) read with the provisions of the Act of 1955, cultivation of land was not required to be made by the petitioner in person being a member of the armed forces. He was at liberty to let out the land and, in that case, it is taken to be cultivation by the petitioner. The aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration by the respondents, rather, the respondents have passed the orders ignoring the documents on record. It considered only one "Khasra Girdawari" of samvat year 2032 ignoring other "Khasra Girdawaris" to show cultivation of the land in dispute. In the light of the facts given above, writ petition deserves to be allowed while setting aside the impugned orders.;