Kulwant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to mutate the land measuring 23 bighas comprising square no.148/23 in chak 2RWM in his name in the revenue record and to hand over the possession of the same. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that he may be allotted 23 bighas uncommand land in Tehsil Nachna elsewhere.

The petitioner was allotted the aforesaid land vide allotment order dated 3.10.08 pursuant to sealed bid auction. The petitioner deposited the sale price, however, the land was not mutated in his name and the possession was also not handed over inasmuch as, the land in question is recorded in the revenue record in the name of Department of Forest. The petitioner claimed allotment of alternative land but his request was not acceded to. The petitioner served the respondents with a notice for demand of justice, but to no avail. Hence, this petition.

A reply to the writ petition is filed by the respondents taking the stand that the land allotted to the petitioner admittedly belongs to Department of Forest and thus, the possession thereof cannot be handed over to him. It is submitted that since the possession of the land is not handed over to the petitioner and he is not recorded as khatedar tenant, no land can be allotted in his favour in exchange of the land in question. However, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him pursuant to sealed bid auction.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner cannot be penalised for no fault on his part. It is submitted that if the respondents are not in position to hand over the possession of the land allotted to the petitioner then, they are under an obligation to allot the alternative land to the petitioner in exchange. In support of the contention, the reliance is placed on a decision of this court in 'Bhanwar Khan vs. The Board of Revenue', 2002 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1385.

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel submits that the possession of the land is not handed over to the petitioner and he has not been recorded as khatedar tenant of the land in question and therefore, he is not entitled for allotment of the land in exchange. It is submitted that the respondents are ready to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner with interest.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, the land in question is recorded in the revenue record in the name of Department of Forest and therefore, the allotting authority had no authority whatsoever to allot the land in question to the petitioner and thus, allotment order issued does not create any right in his favour. It is not disputed before this court that the allotment of land in exchange is governed by statute and nobody can claim the land in exchange as a matter of right. Admittedly, the petitioner has neither been recorded as khatedar nor the possession of the land is handed over to him and therefore, the action of the respondents in declining to allot the land in exchange dehors the provisions of Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment & Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 cannot be faulted with.

In Bhanwar Khan's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court categorically held that the forest land could not be allotted for agricultural purposes, however, since the petitioners therein were handed over the possession of the land, they had made improvements thereon and were later dispossessed, the directions were issued to allot alternate land to them. But, in the instant case, admittedly, though the petitioner deposited the sale price, he was never handed over possession of the land and was not recorded as khatedar tenant of the land either. Thus, the aforesaid decision relied upon by the petitioner, is clearly distinguishable on facts.

In any case, since the petitioner cannot be handed over possession of the land allotted, the respondents while cancelling the allotment made were under an obligation to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner alongwith interest.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to allotment letter dated 3.10.08 issued in his favour alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of deposit of amount till the actual payment. The amount alongwith interest shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four weeks, failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay interest to the petitioner @ 12% from the date of the deposit of the amount.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.