The Rajasthan High Court has set a precedent that underscores the essence of justice and the legislative intent behind land allotment. The court recently addressed a significant issue faced by a farmer, who was mistakenly allotted non-cultivable land, by allowing an exchange with cultivable land that the farmer had been nurturing for over half a century. This ruling not only rectifies a clerical error but also honors the hard work and dedication of the agriculturalist involved.
Also Read- Delhi High Court Queries JNU On Student Union Election Process Amid Controversies (lawchakra.in)
The case came to light when the single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur was presented with the plight of a farmer who had been inadvertently given barren land in 1977, identified by Khasra No.134/269, instead of the fertile 38 bighas under Khasra No. 173 he had originally applied for. The error remained unnoticed until the farmer sought to rectify the situation, leading to a series of bureaucratic hurdles that culminated in the High Court’s intervention.
Justice Mathur, presiding over the case, highlighted the absurdity of not allowing the land exchange, stating,
“it will be a 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 the last 50 years, all his efforts will go in vain”
This observation underscores the court’s recognition of the farmer’s enduring commitment to the land.
The legal journey began when the concerned Gram Panchayath and the Jaisalmer Tehsildar recognized the farmer’s predicament and recommended the land exchange. Despite these recommendations and a ‘No Objection‘ certificate from the Tehsildar, the District Collector of Jaisalmer rejected the application, prompting the farmer to seek judicial recourse.
The High Court’s deliberation brought into focus Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, which aims to ensure that cultivable land is allotted for agricultural purposes, reflecting the legislature’s intention to support agriculturalists. Justice Mathur remarked,
“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”
Furthermore, the court examined the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, particularly Section 5(26) and Section 48, which facilitate the exchange of land when both parties, the tenant and the landholder, agree. In this context, the state acts as the landholder, with the District Collector as the custodian, thereby enabling the exchange process.
Also Read- Delhi High Court Reviews Subramanian Swamy’s PIL Against Axis Bank Over Alleged Insurance Fraud (lawchakra.in)
Justice Mathur’s ruling emphasized,
“n 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”
This decision not only addresses the farmer’s immediate concerns but also sets a precedent for similar cases, reminding state authorities of their ability to rectify such issues.
The court’s directive to the District Collector to allot the land bearing Khasra No. 173 to the petitioner by passing appropriate orders is a testament to the judiciary’s role in upholding justice and legislative intent. This case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by farmers and the importance of accessible and fair legal recourse in addressing land-related disputes.
Represented by Mr. Paramveer Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Dayal Choudhary for the respondents, this case marks a significant moment in the annals of Rajasthan’s judicial history, ensuring that the spirit of the law prevails over clerical errors and bureaucratic oversights.
CASE DETAILS:
Case title- Dungar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Represented the petitioner- Mr. Paramveer Singh
Represented the respondents- Mr. Ram Dayal Choudhary
Also Read- Senthil Balaji Case || Madras High Court Denies Stay On Money Laundering Proceedings (lawchakra.in)
