'Travesty Of Justice' If Non-Cultivable Land Is Allotted To A Farmer: Rajasthan High Court Orders Regularisation Of Exchanged Land

Rajasthan High Court recently allowed the exchange of a piece of non-cultivable land wrongly allotted to a farmer with cultivable land which was already in his possession for over 50 years, to avoid the 'travesty of justice' and honour the true intention behind Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

While allowing the regularisation of land via exchange as sought by the petitioner agriculturalist, the single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur quashed the 2021 order of Collector, Jaisalmer. The bench sitting at Jodhpur opined that the officer did not give due regard to Section 101 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

“…it will be travesty of justice if the exchange of land is not permitted in the present case as the petitioner has made a Banjar and non-cultivable land into a cultivable land by his hard work, dedication and commitment in last 50 years, all his efforts will go in vain…” the single-judge bench noted in the order.

As a landless agriculturalist, the land which was initially allotted to the petitioner in 1977 was bearing Khasra No.134/269 whereas he originally intended to obtain the 38 bighas of land bearing Khasra No. 173 through his application. It was only much later that the agriculturalist realised the discrepancies in Khasra Nos. In 2017, the concerned Gram Panchayath recommended the exchange of plots in favour of the petitioner as per his application for exchange.

Thereafter, the Jaisalmer Tehsildar also issued 'No Objection' for exchange. Even though the Jaisalmer SDO submitted a site report mentioning that the allotted plot is non-cultivable and the petitioner is in possession of Khasra No. 173, the District Collector rejected the petitioner's application for exchange. Aggrieved by this order, the farmer reached the High Court.

“…prima-facie this Court is of the view that a land which is cultivable is only required to be allotted to a person under Section 101 of the Act of 1956 to achieve and satisfy the intention of the legislature…”, the court initially noted in the order after considering the SDO's (Jaisalmer) report.

The court also delved deep into Section 5(26) and Section 48 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Section 48 allows for the exchange of land when the tenant and landholder is in agreement, the court observed. According to these provisions, there is no bar to allow the application of exchange when the state is a landholder within the meaning of Section 5(26). In such cases, the custodian of such land would be the District Collector, the court added.

“…In the present case, since both the lands belong to the landholder i.e. State which is sought for exchange by the petitioner, therefore, there is no impediment for the State Government to allow the application of the petitioner for exchange of land…”, the court further clarified.

Sub-rule 2 of Rule 24AA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Rules also grants state government the liberty to give a tenant, with his consent, any alternative land in exchange for the land let out to him, the court added.

“…In the present case also, since the Collector is the authority concerned and the person who is seeking the land in exchange is the petitioner, therefore, there is no impediment for the Collector to allow the application preferred by the petitioner for exchange of land”, Justice Mathur concluded.

There are plenty of instances wherein the District Collectors in Rajasthan have allowed applications for the exchange of land in identical situations, the court reminded the state. Accordingly, the District Collector was directed to allot the land bearing Khasra No. 173 in favour of the petitioner by passing appropriate orders.

For Petitioners: Mr. Paramveer Singh

For Respondents: Mr. Ram Dayal Choudhary

Case Title: Dungar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16375/2021

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 47

Click Here To R ead/ Download Order