No Provision For Review Under Rajasthan Colonisation Act But Supplemental Provisions In Other Statutes May Be Invoked To Exercise Power: High Court

Recently, Rajasthan High Court has held that an Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) was right in entertaining an application filed for the review of its own order, albeit under Section 151 CPC, by a comprehensive interpretation of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, before rendering the decision, initially analysed Section 5 [Applicability of tenancy and land revenue laws to tenancies held and proceedings conducted under the Act] of the 1954 Act. The bench sitting at Jodhpur then drew the conclusion that when there is no relevant provision in the 1954 Act, the officer can resort to supplemental provisions in other statutes such as Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

Since the moot point before the court was the Assistant Commissioner exercising the powers of review when the 1954 Act does not entail anything to that effect, Justice Mathur inferred that Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act can be applied in the present case which confers the power of review to the reviewing officer to review its order.

“The revenue laws and the laws pertaining to the land in the State of Rajasthan can be used as supplemental provisions in the aid of the Act of 1954 by virtue of Section 5 of this Act and therefore, Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 can be applied in the present case for considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 20.12.1990”, the court further noted.

Notably, Section 86 of the 1956 Act provides for the review of any order passed by the Revenue Court or any officer of its own motion or on any application filed by any interested party.

Background

According to the petitioner, the ex-parte order given by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) on 20.12.1990 was not in accordance with the law; hence a review petition was filed under Section 151 CPC for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. In 1992, the Allotment Advisory Committee allotted 25 bighas to the petitioner out of cultivation lease of 37 bighas of land.

The subject matter in the application was concerning the permanent allotment of land under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony), Rules, 1975. Previously, in 1985, the petitioner's temporary cultivation lease was cancelled, though he continued his possession over the said land even after that.

Later, The Tehsildar (Colonisation) preferred an application before the Commissioner (Colonisation), Bikaner for cancellation of the Permanent Allotment. This was allowed on 12.01.1999. Though the said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, the said revision petition was dismissed on 23.03.1999. Against these orders, the current writ petition was filed.

In the order dated 12.01.1999 and 23.03.1999, it was held that no power of review is vested in the allotting officer; the petitioner should have preferred an appeal instead of a review application. Moreover, the petitioner was not even a bona fide resident of the concerned village, it was found by both the Commissioner and the Board.

Other Observations

The court opined that the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) rightly reviewed its own order since Section 86(2) of the 1956 Act can be applied here. About the applicability of the specific provision, i.e., Section 86 of the 1956 Act, the court further explained in the order as below:

“…Although, the application preferred by the petitioner was under section 151 CPC and the same was not titled/labelled as review application but in the present circumstances, it can safely be presumed that the application was filed to review the order/decision dated 20.12.1990…”

About the bona fides of the petitioner being a permanent resident and agriculturalist cultivating the land in the village of Barsalpur, the court held that the certificate issued by Tehsildar (Colonisation), Kolayat was self-explanatory.

Citing the above reasons, the high court quashed the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in 1999. Consequently, the single-judge bench upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation), Kolayat in 1992.

Advocate Varun Goyal appeared for the petitioner. AGC I.S. Pareek represented the respondent authorities.

Case Title: Shiv Ratan v. State of Rajasthan Through Colonisation Officers & Ors

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1352/1999

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 33

Click Here To Read/ Download Order