Khere Khan @ Kherdeen and Sheria vs State of Raj. and Others

Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

By the impugned order dated 04.06.2008, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer has dismissed the petitioners'' revision u/s 23(2) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "relevant rules").

The Board of Revenue has held that the allotment of land in question to the petitioner was cancelled on account of the report of the District Magistrate that the petitioner is involved in antinational activities and as many as four cases were lodged/instituted against him under the Provisions of Passport Act, Arms Act and also NDPS Act.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. LD Khatri contended that:

(I) The petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of allotment under Rule 16(6) of the relevant Rules and (ii) that in four criminal cases referred by the competent authority in the order dated 08.10.1997, the petitioner was discharged/acquitted, even prior to passing of the said order. He further submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and being in violation of principles of natural justice and the Board of Revenue has erred in rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner.

On the other hand Mr. R.L. Jangid learned Addl. Advocate General, and Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that Rule 16 of the relevant rules containing terms and conditions of the allotment envisages that the land of the said colony can be allotted to the residents of that area, subject to conditions stipulated therein and Rule 16(6) empowers the allotting authority to cancel such allotment, if the District Magistrate reports that the allottee of land is involved in any antinational activity. It is further submitted that the said Rule 16(6) of the Rules does not envisage a notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that as per Rule 16(6) of the said Rules, report of the District Magistrate in this regard is final and the allotment authority is bound to accept the same. The learned District Magistrate need not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to giving of any such report about the petitioner that he is involved in anti-national activities for obvious reasons. Admittedly, since in the present case, institution of four criminal cases of serious nature under the NDPS, Arms Act and Passport Act against the present petitioner is not disputed the mere fact that he was discharged in one or two cases or acquitted in others due to giving of benefit of doubt. It does not entitle him to retain the allotment of land in question as a matter of right. The report of the District Magistrate in this regard is final and since the same contains findings of facts against the petitioner indulging into antinational activities, the cancellation of allotment u/s 16(6) appears to have been rightly upheld by the Board of Revenue.

This Court, on the totality of the facts and circumstances in the present case does not find that it is a fit case to interfere in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.