[2025:RJ-JP:25360] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6844/2004 Banna Ram (since deceased) through his legal heir Shri Mool Chand son of late Shri Banna Ram, aged 42 years, resident of village Panu Kalan, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer. 2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. 3. Additional District Magistrate (II), District Jaipur. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. 5. Sitaram Meena son of Shri Kalyan Meena, resident of village Panu Kalan, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6843/2004 Banna Ram (since deceased) through his legal heir:- 1/1. Mool Chand son of Late Shri Banna Ram, aged 42 years, resident of Village Panu Kalan, Tehsil Dudu, Dist. Jaipur. 1/2. Kamla Daughter of Late Shri Banna Ram, wife of Shri Bhiva Ram, aged 45 years, resident of Village Tumbipura, Tehsil Mojamabad-Dudu, Dist. Jaipur. 1/3. Nanchi daughter of late Shri Banna Ram, wife of Shri Bhiva Ram, aged 40 years, resident of Village Bachheda, Tehsil Mojamabad-Dudu, Dist. Jaipur. 1/4. Vimla daughter of Late Shri Banna Ram Resident of Village Bachheda, Tehsil Mojamabad-Dudu, Dist. Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer. 2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. 3. Additional District Magistrate (II), District, Jaipur. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. 5. Sita Ram S/o Kalyan Sahai (since deceased) through legal heirs: 5/1 Prahlad Sahay Meena S/o Sita Ram 5/2 Jaswant Singh S/o Sita Ram 5/3 Sohan Lal s/o Sita Ram [2025:RJ-JP:25360] (2 of 5) [CW-6844/2004] All sons of late Sh. Sita Ram R/o Meeno Ki dhani, palu kala gidhani, Teh. Mojamabada, Palukala dudu, Dist. Jaipur. 5/4 Kamli Devi w/o Pradhan Meena R/o Rehlana Dudu. 5/5 Babli w/o Dhanna Lal Meena R/o Kachnar Distt. Phulera. 5/6 Sampat Devi w/o Bhagchand Meena R/o Rehlana Dudu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra-G.C. with Ms. Gunjan Chawla JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/07/2025 1. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dated 15.05.1996 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, ‘the RAA’) and the orders dated 25.02.1999 and 31.07.2003 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that allotment of the subject land was made in favour of the petitioner by the authorities on 14.04.1972 and the same was cancelled and the subject land was allotted to the respondent No. 5 on 23.06.1973, without holding any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Counsel submits that when the petitioner came to know about the cancellation of his allotment letter dated 23.06.1973, he immediately, thereafter submitted an application under Rule 14(4) of the Land Allotment Rules, 1970 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1970’) before the Additional Collector-II, Jaipur and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 20.11.1995 and the allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 5 was [2025:RJ-JP:25360] (3 of 5) [CW-6844/2004] cancelled. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 5, preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’) before the RAA and the appeal submitted by the respondent No. 5 was allowed vide order dated 15.05.1996 not on merits but on the technical count that the allotment order of respondent No. 5 was assailed by the petitioner after a delay of more than ten years and within ten years, the respondent No.5 acquired the Khatidari rights on the subject land but instead of deciding the matter on its merits, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Counsel submits that there was no reason or occasion available with the Appellate Court to grant such liberty to the petitioner to file the civil suit when the provisions contained under the Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 are clear and specific, hence the matter was required to be adjudicated on its merit by the RAA. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.1996 passed by the RAA, the petitioner approached the Board by way of filing an appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956, however, the same was rejected, thereafter a revision petition was submitted and the same was also rejected by the Board by the impugned orders dated 25.02.1999 and 31.07.2003 respectively. Counsel submits that the issue raised by the petitioner was not considered by both the Courts below and accordingly, the impugned orders have been passed, which require interference of this Court. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that well explained and cogent orders have been [2025:RJ-JP:25360] (4 of 5) [CW-6844/2004] passed not only by the First Appellate Authority but also by the Second Appellate Authority, hence interference of this Court is not warranted and these writ petitions are liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that regularization of the subject land was done in favour of the petitioner by the authorities on 14.04.1972 but thereafter the subject land was allotted to the respondent No.5 on 23.06.1973. It appears that without affording any opportunity of hearing, the aforesaid allotment was made in favour of the respondent No.5 and the petitioner was not aware about issuance of the aforesaid allotment and subsequently thereafter, an application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 was submitted by him before the Additional District Collector-II, and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.11.1995 and the allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 5 was cancelled. It appears that the respondents filed an appeal against the aforesaid order and the same was not decided on merits but the same was decided on a technical count that by virtue of 10 years, the respondent No.5 has acquired the Khatedari Rights automatically over the subject land and the order passed by the Additional Collector was set aside by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court the RAA was quite competent to examine the validity of the order dated 20.11.1995 passed by the Additional Collector-II, Jaipur inspite of relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing civil suit. [2025:RJ-JP:25360] (5 of 5) [CW-6844/2004] Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the RAA is not sustainable and in consequence thereof the subsequent orders dated 25.02.1999 and 31.07.2003 passed by the Board are also not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be and are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of and the matter is remitted to the RAA for its fresh adjudication, after providing the opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 8. It is expected from the RAA to decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible within a period of one year from the date of their appearance. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the RAA on 29.07.2025. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/17-18