JUDGMENT
Keshote, J.
1. In these two matters the point in issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is identical. Not only this both these petitions arise from the common order of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The arguments in these two petitions though were heard on two different dates but for the reasons aforesaid these are being decided by this common order.
2. The facts and grounds of the challenge to the impugned orders are taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1066/2001.
3. The petitioners stated that they are domicile resident of village Khedi former Tehsil Kishangarhwas, present Tehsil Cotkasim, District Alwar. They are as per their case agriculturists by vocation. They claim themselves to be continuing in possession of the land comprise in khasra No. 144 measuring 2 bigha and 5 biswas situated in village Khedi since the time of their ancestors. It is stated that earlier the petitioners uncle Mangya son of Bheenva Gujar was cultivating the disputed land. After his death the petitioners being sole heirs are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. The land what it is averred is continuing in possession of petitioners and they become entitled to retain this land as they are landless agriculturists and the total area of land held by them including the disputed land in their khatedari is less than 15 bighas. It is further stated that the land is dispute does not fall within the categories of the land specified in Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter, referred as ‘the Rules, 1970’).
4. The S.D.O., Kishangarhwas on 20.3.95 as per the case of the petitioners held the meeting of Allotment Committee for allotment of the land under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1970. The petitioners grievanced that this meeting of the Allotment Committee was held by this officer without issuing any proclamation and inviting applications for allotment. Their further grievance is that without complying with the provisions of Rules 4, 9, 10 and 13 of the Rules, 1970 and without inviting all the members of the Allotment Committee vide order dt.20.3.95 ordered the allotment of 2 bighas and 5 biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 144 of village Khedi in favour of non-petitioner No. 5. The land in dispute what it is stated was not available for the allotment as the same is continuing in the possession of the petitioners and no allotment of the same could have been made without first dispossessing them from the land in question. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Allotment Committee did not consider and
decide the application of petitioners for regularising the said land in their favour. Being aggrieved of the order of the Allotment Committee dt.20.3.95 the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar. This appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by that authority on 16.7.96. The petitioners carried the matter against these orders in the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer decided the appeal of the petitioners vide its common judgment dated 23.2.2001. The appeal of the petitioners was came to be rejected. Hence these petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that allotment of the land by the Allotment Committee was nothing but an allotment thereof in total violation of the Rules, 1970. The requirements of the rules were not fulfilled and in an arbitrary manner this allotment has been made. It has next been contended that the land in dispute was not available for allotment as the petitioners are continuing in possession thereof. Unless they dispossessed from the land in dispute, the same could not have been allotted to respondent No. 5. It is contended that the Allotment Committee has not considered the application of the petitioners filed by them for allotment of the land to them. Lastly it is contended that the petitioners are landless agriculturists and their claim when they are in possession of the land in dispute has to be considered irrespective of the fact whether they filed the application for allotment or not.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the orders passed by the three authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to show any material from the record of the case that the petitioners ever filed an application for regularisation of their possession by allotment of this land in dispute in their favour. I do not find any merits in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the application is not filed the authority has to consider their claim for allotment as they were in possession of the land. They are the rank trespassers on the land. They made the encroachment on this land. Otherwise also in a case of an encroacher he deserves no consideration in the eye of law. It is not in dispute that petitioners are holding other land in their khatedari. It is a different matter that the land in the khatedari may be less than 15 bighas but it is not the case that they are not having any land. It may be true that the definition of landless agriculturists as given in the Act may cover their case but in the matter of the allotment of the land the first and foremost consideration for the allotment authority is first to give the land to those persons who are not having a single inch of the land. The object and purpose of the Rules, 1970, does not mean nor it is born out and to be accepted to first make good of the deficit of 15 bighas of land possessed by the person concerned. The basic conception and underline object and purpose of the Rules, 1970, is that landless persons are to be given the land. In this way I am of the considered opinion that the Rules 1970 are to be read and applied to fulfil its underline object, purpose and consideration. At the cost of repetition, I have to state that underline conception, object and purpose of the Rules of 1979, is to give the land to the landless persons and in this perspective if the matter is considered firstly claims of those persons are to be considered who are really landless persons, that is not possession single inch of the agricultural land with them. In this case the petitioners are trespassers on this land in dispute. It is unfortunate in the country that those persons who act contrary to laws of the land are being given the benefits. That is what precisely the petitioners are claiming. They are the trespassers and on the basis of their this illegal, unauthorised and undesirable possession on the land in dispute they are claiming the preference over those really landless persons who are not having a single inch of the land with them. It is not the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 5 was having any land and still he has been allotted the land in dispute. The rank trespasser has no right, title and interest whatsoever in the land in dispute. Their possession cannot be protected and moreso when they are having the land in their khatedari may be less than 15 bighas. All the three authorities decided the matter against the petitioners. The petition Under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution is meant for to protect the right, title and interest of the lawful citizens of the country.
The Court is to protect right title and interest of the law abiding citizens. Under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution where this Court exercises its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction no relief to the rank trespassers of the land can be given. Otherwise if we go by this approach then the persons who believed in doing the things in illegal way will get the premium at the cost of law abiding honest, real landless persons.
7. I do not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the land was available for the allotment. Even where we proceed with this assumption or presumption or acceptance that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land but their possession thereon is only of a rank trespasser and as it is not being a legal possession the land in dispute for all the purposes be taken to be available for the allotment. Under the Rules of 1970, in fact after this allotment instead of entering into all these litigations and depriving of the possession to respondent No. 5 for all these years voluntarily the petitioners should have handed over the possession of this land to respondent No. 5. It is unfortunate that the citizens believe to act against the basic conception of rule of law, honesty believe to act and proceed with all the dishonesty and they may be correct to certain extent as rank trespasser are protected. The petitioners are rank trespasser on the land in dispute and I fail to see any jurisdiction in their approach that the authorities have to take an action for their eviction from the land in dispute. This is the land of the Government and the petitioners have enjoyed the fruits thereof for all these years but have not acquired any right, title or interest to continue in the possession thereof. It is a high time where the Government has to take realistic view in the matter so that this long innings for taking the possession of its own land from the trespassers may not be necessary and adopted. In this way if we go then this very purpose and object of the Rules, 1970 shall be frustrated. It is not unknown that on Government sawai chak land unscrupulous persons have made the encroachements. This land is allotted to poor persons like respondent No. 5, and he has not been given the real, effective and substantial relief and justice but this litigation comes to him as a gift from the Government as that what it is clear from this litigation. The officers of the Government to take all care and caution that this landless persons are given the land and not the litigation. If the lands are under the possession of trespasser a drastic action is to be taken and they are to be evicted therefrom and then the land is to be allotted to the landless persons so the real purpose and object underline in the Rules, 1970 is fulfilled. It is unfortunate that for the Government action what is said in the newspaper or media will be proved to be contrary if we go by the realities of the things. The Government officers may take and feel happy with this the statistical credits that thousands of bighas of land have been allotted to landless persons but if we go by the realities it is not the land but a litigation which has been allotted to this poor class of the persons. These rank trespassers are dragging the bonafide allottee of the land in the litigation and every allottee may not be in a position to resist the litigation and on one day he may surrender to their wishes and desires. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show how the findings recorded by the three authorities regarding the allotment of land has been made after making strict compliance of the Rules, 1970 suffers from any illegality or perversity. Both these petitions are frivolous and baseless and only an attempt on the part of the petitioners to abuse the process of the Court. The petitioners are undisputedly rank trespassers on the land in dispute and this Court is not this class of persons. It is a case where the Court in such matters are to come heavily against this class of persons so that the real justice be done to the landless persons. It is to be made clear to the officers of the Government that in the allotment of land to landless persons they have to first identify that class of the landless persons who are not having/possessing a single inch of land and they are to be preferred. It is a high time where the rank trespassers should not be given any benefit of Allotment Rules, 1970. Even if they are taken eligible for allotment though having made encroachment on Government land, first they have to ask to vacate it and that way the land is made available for the allotment. They can apply for the land and their claims may be placed for consideration of the Allotment
Committee. In the matter of allotment of the land the Allotment Committee may legitimately decline to allot land to those persons who may be landless but would have taken the law in their hand or have not exhibited themselves to be law abiding citizens and have made trespass on Government land. The petitioners if we go by these petitions it is clear they have not vacated the land to make it available for giving possession thereof to respondent No. 5. From the report of the Commissioner their possession on the land in dispute is reported. Simplicitor dismissal of these petitions by this Court may not be final solution and a real justice to respondent No. 5 unless he gets the possession of the land in dispute forthwith. The petitioners as what they are exhibiting themselves in ordinary course will not hand over the possession of the land in dispute to respondent No. 5. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to see that no injustice is caused to a person who has been legally allotted the land under the Rules, 1970. This Court has also to take into consideration that the rank trespassers may not get any further premium whatsoever. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, to do complete and substantial justice to this landless person, respondent No. 5, the petitioners are person, respondent No. 5, the petitioners are directed to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to the Tehsildar concerned within a period of one months from the date of receipt the writ of this order. The Tehsildar concerned is directed to give the possession of this land to respondent No. 5 on receiving it from the petitioners. In case the petitioners do not comply with this direction of the Court, the Tehsildar concerned is to report the matter to the Court immediately. The compliance of this order is also to be reported by the petitioners to the Court. It is a case where rank trespassers have made attempt to abuse the process of the Court. Not only this the petitioners by filing these petitions have increased the workload of the Court which results in consuming its valuable and precious time. It is a fit case where the exemplary cost is to be awarded against the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- each as the cost of these petitions. They are directed to deposit this amount of the cost in the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund and the receipt of deposit thereof be produced on the record of these cases. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the petitioners of these petitions and the Tehsildar concerned forthwith by registered post A.D.
8. With the directions aforestated, these writ petitions are dismissed.