Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.03.1999 whereby the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'/'the Board of Revenue') accepted the revision petition (No.TA/67/94/Gangangar) preferred by the present respondent No.4 Kulwant Singh; and, while setting aside the order dated 16.03.1994 as passed by the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar in Appeal No.34/1992, restored the order dated 15.01.1992 as passed by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sriganganagar after holding that in the given status of record, the proceedings under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') were not maintainable against the revisionist.
2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, this Court is satisfied that the Board of Revenue has not committed any jurisdictional error in pass
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ing the impugned order dated 24.03.1999 and in holding that in the given status of record, the summary ejectment2 proceedings under Section 183-B ibid. were not maintainable. Therefore, no case for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction is made out; and this petition is required to be dismissed but, in the interest of justice, with the necessary observations for appropriate proceedings.
3. In view of the above, only a brief reference to the background aspects would suffice. The petitioner Natha Singh, said to be the member of a Scheduled Caste, made an application under Section 183-B of the Act of 1955 before the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sriganganagar with the allegations that the non-applicant Kulwant Singh (respondent No.4 herein), who was not a member of any Scheduled Caste, had trespassed over 3 bighas and 10 biswas of land belonging to him. The non-applicant contested the application with the submissions that he had purchased the land in question from one Prem Singh son of Kesar Singh, a non-Scheduled Caste person, and there had not been any trespass over the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person. The Tehsildar recorded the statement of Patwari who asserted that the land in question was recorded as government land and the non-applicant was in possession thereof. Looking to the given position of the record, the Tehsildar though held that the provisions of Section 183-B ibid. were not applicable when the land in question was not recorded in the name of the applicant but observed that the non-applicant being a trespasser over the government land, appropriate proceedings were required to be adopted against him under Section 91 of the Rajasthan3 Land Revenue Act. The Tehsildar also directed the applicant to move the competent court for correction of the revenue record so that appropriate proceedings could be adopted after recording of the land in his khatedari. The Tehsildar said,-
4. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tehsildar, the present petitioner filed an appeal (No.34/1992) that was considered and allowed by the learned Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar by the order dated 16.03.1994. The learned Additional Collector referred to the documents on record including the sale deed in favour of the non-applicant and the Sanad issued in favour of the father of the applicant and found that as per the record, Shri Ganda Singh, father of the applicant, ought to be having 8.17 bighas of land in possession whereas actual possession was over 5.16 bighas only and the remaining 3.01 bighas of land was not in his possession. The learned Additional Collector also observed that under the sale deed in question, 3.01 bighas of land comprised in khasra No.25 was sold to the non-applicant on 26.12.1973 but therein, murraba number and kila numbers4 were not mentioned nor the details of land holding of the vendor were stated. It was also observed that in the regularisation order issued by the Collector (Admn.), again, the land of khasra No.25 was mentioned without complete particulars and hence, it was not clear as to which particular land it related to? The learned Additional Collector came to the conclusion that 3.01 bighas of land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person had been trespassed over by a nonScheduled Caste person; and directed that if the non-applicant be in possession of the land question, such possession be immediately handed over to the applicant; and necessary mutation be made accordingly. The learned Additional Collector, inter alia, observed and directed as under:-
5. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar, the respondent No.4 Kulwant Singh preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue that has been considered and allowed by the5 impugned order dated 24.03.1999. The Board of Revenue found that the revisionist had purchased the land from a nonScheduled Caste person who was an allottee and was handed over possession by the government. The Board further observed that if on any later date, the same land came to be allotted to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste, it cannot be assumed that the other (non-Scheduled Caste) person was a trespasser because at the time of his entering into possession, the land was not in the name of a Scheduled Caste person. The Board also observed that for the reason of ambiguity in the record, the revisionist could not be treated to be a trespasser; but for the purpose of Section 183-B of the Act of 1955, it was required to be established that the land had been duly allotted to the Scheduled Caste person and after his possession, the revisionist had enter into the possession. In the circumstances of the case, the Board found the proceedings under Section 183-B not maintainable and proceeded to allow the revision petition with the following amongst other observations:-
6. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Board of Revenue, the applicant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
7. Though the submissions are sought to be made in this writ petition on the questions of fact regarding the petitioners entitlement of the land in question with reference to the allotment made in favour of his father but such a factual enquiry cannot be made in this petition. The only question worth consideration herein is as to whether the Board has committed any jurisdictional error or proceeded beyond its parameters? Having considered the matter in its totality, this Court is unable to find any such shortcoming in the order passed by the Board of Revenue.
8. In a comprehension of the matter, it appears that in any event, it had not been the case where the revenue authorities could have come to a direct and specific conclusion that the non-applicant (respondent No. 4) had been a trespasser over the land held by a tenant belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The procedure for summary ejectment of the trespasser of the land held by a tenant belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as contained in Section 183-B ibid., presupposes an indisputable position regarding the basic fact that the land is held by a tenant belonging to a Scheduled Caste or7 Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, though certain suggestions have been made about the allotment in favour of the father of the petitioner but the Tehsildar has found the land sought to be referred by the applicant recorded as government land. The learned Additional Collector, even while allowing the appeal filed by the applicant did not return a positive and categorical finding about khatedari right of the applicant and about possession of the non-applicant on any such khatedari land of the applicant. The learned Additional Collector, instead, directed that if Kulwant Singh be in possession of such 3.01 bighas of land, he be dispossessed; and further that mutation be effected accordingly. Obviously, the findings as recorded by the learned Additional Collector fell short of requisite basic findings for a valid order of summary ejectment. The Board of Revenue has rightly taken the factual and legal aspects into comprehension and has rightly held that in the given status of the record, the matter was not of summary ejectment proceedings under Section 183-B ibid.
9. In an overall view of the matter, the Board of Revenue cannot be faulted in not approving the order passed by the Additional Collector (Vigilance) and in restoring the order passed by the Tehsildar (Revenue). Hence, no case for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction is made out.
10. However, it need be observed that even while this Court is not interfering with the aforesaid order dated 24.03.1999 as passed by the Board of Revenue, so far the claim of the petitioner in relation to the land in question is concerned, he8 shall, of course, be free to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law and merely for rejection of these proceedings under Section 183-B of the Act of 1955, the rights of the petitioner shall not be considered as foreclosed. It is also observed that if appropriate recourse is taken with reference to the observations made in the order dated 15.01.1992, as passed by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sriganganagar and as reproduced hereinabove, the competent Court/Authority shall proceed in accordance with law and in that regard, it is also made clear that the observations as made by the Board of Revenue shall not be treated as prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners and such observations shall be read as being confined to and relevant only for the purpose of consideration of the proceedings under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and not beyond.
11. Accordingly, though this writ petition is dismissed but with the observations foregoing.
There shall be no orders as to costs.