- (1.) THIS revision against an appellate order of the learned Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 2.5.56, arises in the following circumstances.
(2.) RAMLAL, the applicant, filed an application before the Tehsildar, Bhadra, in which he prayed that as he was short of living accommodation, he might be allotted 2,250 sq. yds of Parat land for purposes of building a residential house. When this application was being inquired into, some of the residents of the village including the opposite parly objected to this allotment on the ground that it was not included in the Abadi of the village but was a Paithan (catchment area) of the village Johr used for storing drinking water for the residents as well as the cattle of the village. The Naib-Tehsildar under instructions from the Tehsildar visited the site and acting on his report the Tehsildar proposed the land in question to be allotted to the applicant. This appears to have been sanctioned under the Raiyatana Rules of the former Bikaner State by the Assistant Collector, Nohar on 19.6.50. Being aggrieved from this order, the residents of the village including the opposite party again approached the Asstt. Collector and objected to this allotment on the ground that this land was not in the Abadi of the village but was a commanded area of a village tank used for storing drinking water for cattle etc and if it was allotted to the applicant, it would cause great hardship to the residents of the village. The matter was again examined by the Asstt. Collector who after obtaining a detailed report from the Tehsildar, cancelled his previous order of 9.8.52. In this order the learned Asstt. Collector clearly observed that the land in question was neither in the abadi of the village nor covered by any of the Raiyatana Rules and that it would cause great hardship to the people if the applicant was allowed to build a residential house thereon. He, therefore ordered that the land in question be cleared up and the house if any built by the applicant, be removed. In pursuance of this order, the Patwari of the village sent a compliance report to the effect that the house had since been pulled down and there was nothing left on the site. The applicant went in appeal before the Collector who allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Asstt. Collector with the direction to reconsider the matter as several other persons had also built residential houses near about this land. The new Asstt Collector Nohar, by his order dated 26.6.55, ordered that the applicant be allowed to retain possession on the land which had formerly been allotted to him by his predecessor as a construction thereon was not likely to pollute or divert the accumulation of water in the tank. Gangadhar, the opposite party being aggrieved from this order, filed an appeal before the Collector, Ganganagar, who however, transferred it to the learned Commissioners for disposal. The learned Commissioner, after going through the record of the case, observed that as the land was in the 'pat,nun' of the Johr which was used by the residents of the village, it should not be allotted to the applicant. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order given by the Asstt. Collector, dated 25.6.55 was set aside. It was also directed in the said order that if RAMLAL had taken possession of any land, it should be removed atonce, and that action be also taken against such persons who had similarly encroached upon this Paithan Johr. It is against this order that a revision has been filed to the Board. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the case. We also ascertained from the Tehsildar if the land in question was or was not situated in the abadi of the village and his report is to the effect that it is situated outside the Abadi. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that Gangadhar has no locus stanai in these proceedings a, none of his rights were adversely affected if the land was allotted to the applicant. In support of this, he relied on RLW 1956, page 123 in which it was held that in the Raiyatana Rules, there is no provision which gives a right to anyone to object to the grant of the land by the Govt. This ruling is not at all applicable to the facts of the case for the reason that the land is outside the Abadi to which the Raiyatana Rules do not apply. Obviously the impugned order was given by the learned Commissioner under sec. 147 of the Bikaner Land Revenue Act. It is true that none of the courts below made a reference to this section, but the decision of the learned Commissioner clearly purports to be under the provisions of the Bikaner Land Revenue Act Section 147 of the Bikaner Land Revenue Act may with advantage be reproduced below - "When land which has been reserved for - (a) common purposes of the co-sharers in Tibi Pargana. (b) road footpath, tank, well, cremation ground, graveyard or for the purposes of public utility or for the common use of the villagers in the remaining portion of the State," has been encroached upon by any person, a revenue officer may, on the application of any interested person, eject the person encroaching, from the land and by order proclaimed in the manner prescribed in sec. 21, forbid repetition of the encroachment. From a scrutiny of the facts, we are satisfied that as this land was situated in the catchment area of the tank, the learned Commissioner was perfectly justified in directing the applicant to vacate the land on grounds of public utility. Taking this aspect of the matter into consideration, we hold the order given by the learned Commissioner and reject the application.;