w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. v/s Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD [Active] CIN = U13100RJ1969SGC001263

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD [Active] CIN = L13100RJ1969SGC001263

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993RJ1946PTC000378

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003300

Company & Directors' Information:- K V DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65922MH1979PTC021155

Company & Directors' Information:- M G INVESTMENT AND INDUSTRIAL CO LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1947PTC007551

Company & Directors' Information:- R N B J INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1982PTC028451

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999RJ1949PTC000737

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67121ML1988PTC003133

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1942PTC011099

    Civil Writ Petition No. 3089 of 2012

    Decided On, 11 April 2012

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

    For the Petitioner: Sanjeet Purohit, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----------



Judgment Text

In this writ petition, the petitioner Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation, which is statutory body, is challenging the validity of the order dt. 03.11.2008 (Annex.-8) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner and order passed by the Board of Revenue dt. 01.11.2011 (Annex.-12) and submits that judgment dt. 19.07,2010 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner may be upheld and matter may be remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner for deciding afresh after providing opportunity to all the parties.

2. As per facts of the case, a revenue suit was filed by the respondents Dula Ram and Gopal under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for declaration. The suit filed by the respondents was decided after framing issues and taking evidence by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner on 03.10.2005, in which, it is held that land situated in village Chakgarbi Tehsil Bikaner, khasra No. 43/850/ 159/43/115 measuring 9 bigha 13 biswa, khasra No. 923/159/115/14 measuring 10 bigha 18 biswa, khasra No. 1093/159/15/6 measuring 2 bigha 12 biswa and khasra No. 1176/365/6 measuring 5 bigha 15 biswa, total 28 bigha 18 biswa land was declared khatedari land of respondents Dularam and Gopal. The judgment rendered by the Sub Division Officer (North), Bikaner dt. 03.10.2005 became final because it is not challenged by the State Government further.

3. During pendency of the above suit, a proposal was made by the District Collector for allotting the said land to the petitioner RIICO. The land in question was allotted to the RIICO but RIICO was not party in the suit filed by Dula Ram and Gopal, therefore, aggrieved by the order dt. 03.10.2005 an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. In the appeal filed by the RIICO under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner set aside the judgment dt. 03.10.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner vide judgment dt. 19.07.2010 and remitted the matter to the S.D.O. (North), Bikaner with direction that the RIICO may be impleaded as party respondent No. 4 and, thereafter, the suit may be decided afresh after framing issues.

4. The respondents preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against' the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dt. 19.07.2010. The Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer allowed the second appeal filed by the private respondents vide judgment under challenge dt. 01.11.2011 and set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and upheld the judgment dt. 03.10.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the suit was decided without impleading RIICO as party and land in question was allotted to the RIICO for establishment of industrial area, therefore, for quashing the judgment of the S.D.O. (North), Bikaner passed in the suit filed by the private respondents appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and learned Revenue Appellate Authority rightly remitted the case to the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner for deciding the suit afresh after impleading RIICO; but, this aspect of the matter has wrongly been considered by the Board of Revenue, therefore, the order dt 01.11.2011 may be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority only remitted the case for deciding the same afresh after providing opportunity to the RIICO because land is allotted to the RIICO and RIICO is required to develop industrial area upon the land in question. The Board of Revenue failed to consider the fact that there was right accrued in favour of the RIICO after allotment of land in question to the RIICO by the State, therefore, the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dt. 01.11.2011 is not sustainable in law. Hence, it is prayed that while quashing the impugned order, the matter may be remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner for deciding afresh.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. Upon perusal of the finding given by the Board of Revenue, it is revealed that judgment was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner against the State prior to allotment of land in question to the RIICO. The question of land in dispute was sub judice before the Court but the District Collector illegally made recommendation to transfer the land to the RIICO and, upon recommendation made by the District Collector, the land was transferred to RIICO vide order dt. 19.04.2003 and, admittedly, on that date, the suit was pending in between the private respondents and State. The Board of Revenue while considering the aspect of possession gave categorical finding that possession is taken over only on paper because still the possession of the said land was with the private respondents. In my opinion, the finding given by the Board of Revenue with regard to the claim of the petitioner over the land is perfectly justified because dispute was going on in between the State and private respondents in the suit pending before the S.D.O. (North), Bikaner. The District Collector, Bikaner who is representing the State was very much before the S.D.O. (North), Bikaner in the suit because the private respondents impleaded the State as party, therefore, there was no occasion for the District Collector to transfer the said land to the RIICO which was subject-matter of the suit.

8. In my opinion, the District Collector, Bikaner acted totally contrary to the basic principles of law and, upon illegal recommendation made by the District Collector, the land was transferred to the RIICO which was subject-matter of the suit in between private respondents and the State. Contention of the petitioner's counsel that without impleading RIICO the matter was decided is totally baseless because the suit was filed in the year 1996 and, on the basis of recommendation made by the District Collector, the land in question was transferred to RIICO on 19.04.2003. Therefore, there was no question to implead RIICO as party because so called right of the RIICO in the land in question accrued

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on 19.04.2003 on the basis of illegal recommendation made by the District Collector for allotment of the land which was subject-matter of the suit. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the Board of Revenue impugned in this writ petition is perfectly in consonance with law because the private respondents contested the suit for 9 years and, after final verdict, a new party RIICO was planted by the District Collector to deny the fruits of the suit filed by the private respondents. 9. On the basis of the above discussion, I see no merit in this writ petition. 10. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed.
O R