SHIV RATAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.653/08) SHIV RATAN VS. STATE & Ors.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 21.2.02 passed by the Board of Revenue , whereby the revision petitions preferred by the petitioner assailing the validity of order dated

5.6.97 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, stand dismissed.

The petitioner was allotted 15 bighas command land and 10 bighas uncommand land in Chak 3 BKM , Murraba No. 113/63 in Rajasthan Canal Area. The land allotted to the petitioner was not culturable therefore, he preferred an application before the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation to allot him any other land in exchange. Accordingly, vide order dated 28.2.92, the petitioner was allotted 20 bighas command land in Chak 4 GWM, Murraba No. 30/47.

The respondent no. 5 Bishan Das was declared eligible for allotment of 20 bighas of command land vide order dated 2.1.92 passed by the Allotting Authority. Accordingly, as per the SHIV RATAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.653/08) 2 recommendation of the advisory committee , he was allotted 23 bighas command land in Chak 4 GWM, Murraba No. 30/47 vide order dated 7.3.92. However, the allotment made in favour of the respondent no. 5 was cancelled by the Allotting Authority vide order dated 9.3.92, keeping in view the allotment of the self same land already made in favour of the petitioner as aforesaid.

The validity of aforesaid order dated 28.2.02 and 9.3.92 was assailed by the respondent no. 5 by way of two separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner Colonisation cum- Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Appellate Authority arrived at the finding that the Allotting Authority had no jurisdiction to allot the land in exchange in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the orders under appeal were set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 5.6.97. The revision petitions preferred by the petitioners against the appellate order dated 5.6.97 have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.02 . Hence, this petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner assailing the validity of order dated 21.2.02 passed by the Board of Revenue after a lapse of about six years, suffers from inordinate delay and laches and therefore, deserves to be dismissed for this reason alone. SHIV RATAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.653/08) 3

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained under the impression that the revision petitions shall be heard by the Board of Revenue after ten years and therefore, the petitioner did not make any attempt to contact his counsel , however, in September,2007 when he approached his counsel, he came to know about the decision of the revision petitions and for this reason , the petitioner could not file the writ petition before this court immediately after passing of the order impugned by the Board.

It is settled law that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court should approach the court at the earliest possible time and should explain satisfactory the cause of delay in filing the petition. In considered opinion of this court, the explanation furnished by the petitioner is not plausible and therefore, not acceptable. Since the petitioner has acquiesced with the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue and did not challenge the same with the utmost expedition therefore, this court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to him in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at this belated stage.

Moreover, even on merits , the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment of the land in question made in favour of the petitioner cannot be said SHIV RATAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.653/08) 4 to be exchange of the land and therefore, the order of allotment issued by the allotting authority in his favour cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Admittedly, in the first instance, the petitioner was allotted 15 bighas of command land and 10 bighas of uncommand land vide order dated 8.7.91 in Chak 3 BKM, Murraba No. 113/63 . It is not disputed before this court that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner in pursuance of an application made by him to allot the alternate land in exchange on the ground that the land allotted to him vide order dated

8.7.91 is not culturable. Therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner is ex facie contrary to record.

It is also not disputed before this court that the Allotting Authority was not competent to exchange the land of the petitioner's tenancy for other land in the canal area. In this view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the Board as aforesaid cannot be faulted with.

9. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/-