High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 07 RAJ CK 0050

State of Rajasthan vs Ibrahim and Another

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 22 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 3 WLN 559

HON’BLE JUDGES
Govind Mathur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 3081 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 260 words

Govind Mathur, J.—The Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner camp Jaisalmer by the judgment dt. 11.11.1999 cancelled allotment of land in command area to the petitioner under order dt. 16.12.1992 passed by the Allotting Authority cum Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner. The cancellation of the allotment was made on the count that as per the police report the allottee was found involved in anti-national activities. Being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 11.11.1999, the allottee/petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and that came to be disposed of vide judgment dt. 21.9.2000.

2.

The Board of Revenue arrived at the conclusion that the finding given by the Commissioner, Colonization was not founded on adequate material, as such, a direction was given to decide the matter afresh by availing fresh report from CID, Superintendent of the Police of the District and the Border Intelligence.

3.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Colonization Commissioner is based on the police report and, therefore, no need was there to remand the matter for its fresh consideration. Having examined the order dt. 11.11.1999, I am satisfied that the finding given by the Commissioner Colonization is not founded on adequate material, as such, the Board of Revenue rightly accepted the revision petition with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the matter afresh by availing appropriate reports from the competent authority. No interference, therefore, is required by this Court with the order impugned while exercising writ powers.

Accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed.