Pattas Obtained By Fraud Or Concealment Do Not Confer Any Right, Limitation Not A Bar For Cancellation Of Such Land Assignments: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has recently iterated that if a patta has been obtained by fraud or concealment, there lies no bar of limitation to cancel such allotment.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner's father has not conferred any right or title since the authorities found out that such allotment was illegal on account of misrepresentation of facts.

The allotment, in in the instant case, was cancelled based on recommendations made by the 'Beri Commission' in the case of the petitioner's father as well as other similarly placed individuals. Beri Commission was constituted by the Government to examine such allotments marred by fraudulent activities of recipients.

“…The allotment has rightly been cancelled by the Additional Collector because the allotment itself was made in favour of the father of the petitioners in contravention of the Rules by treating him as a “landless person” while he was in possession of bighas of land at the time of allotment and he was not a landless person…”, the bench sitting at Jaipur noted adding that the misrepresentation made by petitioner's father formed the foundation of such an allotment under Rule 2(3) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

In appeal, the revenue appellate authority had modified the collector's order in 2005 and retained the land allotment made in 1964 while following the footsteps of the Collector with regards to the allotment made in 1961. According to the respondents, this order was passed allegedly without any rationale.

Finally, the Board of Revenue, in 2011, cancelled both allotments made in favour of the petitioner's father, essentially agreeing with the initial decision made by the court of Additional Collector. This order was challenged by the petitioner and his legal representatives before the High Court.

Initially, the court noted that the petitioner's father does not come within the ambit of a 'landless person' as described in Rule 2(3-B) of the Old Rules of 1956.

“…it is clear that the landless means a person who does not hold any land either in his own name or in the name of any member of his joint family or who holds an area which is less than the minimum area prescribed for this purposes under Section 53 of the Tenancy Act”, Justice Dhand added.

At the time of land allotments, the petitioner's father already had 31 Bigha and 8 Biswa of land which was deliberately not made known to the authorities, the court deduced from the evidence on record.

While deciding the appeal, the High Court also discussed the decision in Chiman Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 2000 Rajasthan 206 wherein it was held that it is not the function of the Court to prescribe the limitation where the legislature had thought it fit not to prescribe any period.

Therefore, the court held that the Additional Collector, Jaipur has rightly exercised his powers under Rule 44 of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agriculture purposes) Rules, 1970 to annul the allotment of two parcels of land admeasuring i) 7 Bighas, and ii) 7 Bighas and 17 Biswas, allocated in 1961 and 1964 respectively. These land allotments were only cancelled by the Collector in 2001, after a lapse of 40 years; this cancellation was affirmed by Board of Revenue in 2011. Hence, the court refused to set aside the impugned orders. 

Senior Advocate Ajeet Bhandari a/w Advocate Vaibhav Bhargava represented the petitioners. Additional Government Counsel Akshay Sharma appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Peer Mohamad & Ors since deceased now being represented through legal representatives v. The State of Rajasthan, through Tehsildar Phagi & Ors.

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1430/2012

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 23

Click Here To Read/ Download Order