C. M. LODHA, C. J. - (1.) THE point involved in this writ petition is a short one and, as has been stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it can be disposed of even without having a reply from the State.
(2.) SHORTLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for allotment of land as landless person and was allotted 25 Bighas of irrigated land in the Colony, Tehsil Chhatargarh in Chak 3 KD, "murabba" 170/18, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Temporary Cultivation Lease) Conditions, 1955, in the year 1971-72. The allotment was renewed for the year 1972-73, but was not renewed for the year 1973-74 on the ground that the petitioner was not proved to be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan from prior to April 1, 1955. Aggrieved by the order of refusal of renewal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, who rejected the same. Thereupon, the petitioner, filed a second appeal before the Colonisation Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that an inquiry should have been held into the question of the petitioner being a bonafide resident of Rajasthan from prior to April 1. 1955. But unfortunately for the petitioner he found that in the 'jamabandi' produced by the petitioner himself, he was shown to be in possession of 3 Bighas & 3 Biswas of land at the time of initial allotment. Consequently, he held that the petitioner had given false information in the application for allotment and had suppressed the material fact that he was already in possession of some land and was not 'landless' judging the case from this stand point he dismissed the petitioner's appeal by pressing into service para 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Temporay Cultivation Lease) Conditions, 1955. The petitioner went in revision before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan which concurred in the findings of the Commissioner Colonisation. Hence, this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner had at the time of applying for allotment on temporary basis not disclosed the fact that he was already in possession of 3 Bighas and 3 Biswas of land, which he was bound to do However, the non-disclosure of this fact does not necessarily entail the resumption of tenancy inasmuch as sec. 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act provides that when the Collector is satisfied that a tenant in possession of land in a colony has committed a breach of the conditions of his tenancy, he may after giving the tenant an opportunity to appear and state his objection (i) impose on the tenant a penalty not exceeding five hundred rupees or (ii) order the resumption of the tenancy; provided that, if the breach is capable of rectification the Collector shall not impose any penalty or order the resumption to the tenancy unless he has issued a written notice requiring the tenant to rectify the breach within a reasonable time, not being less than one month to be stated in the notice and the tenant has failed to comply with such notice. Reference may also be made to section 11 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act wherein it is provided that if any person, who, after the commencement of this Act. has been put in possession of land in a colony as a tenant, shall have given false information intending or having reason to believe that any officer of the State Government may be thereby deceived regarding his qualification to become a tenant, he shall be deemed to have committed a breach of the conditions of his tenancy. Thus it is clear that the matter should have been dealt with under section 14 of the Act, which has not been done by the Commissioner as well as the Board. Consequently, we allow the petition in part, set aside the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner, Colonisation, and send the case to the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner ( who we are told is exercising powers of the Collector under the Act) to decide the matter under section 14 of the Act, after following the procedure prescribed therein. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. .;