Atumal vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajesh Balia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Notices were ordered to be issued on September 3, 1992. The respondents were served before September 1992. No reply has been filed inspite of taking time by the respondents on October 23, 1992.

The short question which arises in this petition which is apparent from the orders passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer, (Janganagar dated April 17, 1990 (annexure/1), the District Collector and Chief Settlement Commissioner dated December 19, 1991 (Annexure/2) and the Divisional Commissioner Bikaner dated April 2, 1992 (Annexure/3) is that the petitioner was allotted certain lands in Chak No. 13 total 5 Bighas and 4 Biswas. In the first instance, the petitioner has not received the sanad of land allotted to him. In his first application for grant of sanad, he gave reference to the new muraba numbers for the purpose of grant of sanad. That application of his was rejected on the ground that the land described in the application does not tally with the land allotted to him. The petitioner having failed in his earlier application moved another application giving the original number for the purpose of grant of sanad. That application was allowed vide order dated April 17, 1990 (Annexure/1) by the District Rehabilitation Officer, (Jangangar. However, on appeal, the order was set aside by the District Collector cum Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated December 19, 1991 (Annexure/2) on the ground that the earlier order rejecting his application for grant of Sanad having become final, sanad cannot now be granted to him. That order was confirmed on revision by the Divisional Commissioner, Biknaer dated April 2, 1992 (Annexure/3).

Having considered the contentions raised before me, I am of the opinion that petition merits acceptance.

In the earlier decision, it was no where decided that the petitioner was not allotted any land. The finding that could be res judicata was only this much that the land described in the application did not tally with the land allotted and that finding could not come in the way of the petitioner by moving fresh application giving correct particulars of the land allotted to him, through which the kind can be identified. The orders dated December 19, 1991 (Annexure/2) and dated April 2, 1992 (Annexure/3) deserve to be set aside as they suffer from the error apparent on the face of record and cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The orders Annexure/2 dated December 19, 1991 passed by the District Collector cum Chief Settlement Commissioner and Annexurc/3 Dated April 2, 1992 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner are quashed and the order Annexure/1 dated April 17, 1990 passed by the District Re-Habilitation Officer, Ganganagar is restored.

There will be no order as to costs.