Naga Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 28.12.75 were set aside on 7.8.78. the same was challenged before revenue appellate authority and then before the board of revenue without any success. we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by the board of revenue which is as under:.....age of 18. according to them, the appellant no. 1 was born on 3.10.54 and the appellant no. 2 on 17.5.57. thus, on the date of allotment, both of them were above 18. in support of their case, they have produced their respective horoscopes before the collector. the collector, sirohi in turn conducted enquiry through s.d.o. regarding their birth dates. the s.d.o. submitted his report along with certified copy of the certificates issued by the school where both the petitioners were admitted. according to their school certificates, their dates of birth were 12.7.59 and 20.10.60 respectively. considering the relevant material placed before him, the collector gave preference to the school leaving certificates rather than horoscopes produced by them on the ground that they were not bearing any signatures. he also found that the petitioners have committed breach of allotment conditions inasmuch as they did not cultivate atleast 50% of land in the first year of allotment. accordingly, the said allotment orders dt. 28.12.75 were set aside on 7.8.78. the same was challenged before revenue appellate authority and then before the board of revenue without any success. therefore, the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Shethna, J.

(1). Notice to the respondents.

(2). Learned counsel Mr. C.L. Jain, who appeared before the learned Single Judge for the respondents, who was present in the Court, was directed to accept notice for the respondents.

(3). At the joint request and by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this special appeal is heard and disposed of today itself by this order.

(4). The appellants are the original petitioners. They were allotted lands in question way back on 28.12.75 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of the Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules')- Some disgruntle elements made a complaint about the allotment of lands made to the appellants before the Collector, Sirohi on the ground that they were minors at the time of allotment. After issuing show cause notice to them to show cause as to why the allotment in theirFavour should not be cancelled, the same was cancelled by the Collector by his order dated 7.8,1978. The complaint was made on another count also namely, that they have committed breach of the terms of allotment in as much as they have not cultivated 50% of the lands in question in the first year of allotment. Before the Collector, both the appellants specifically contended that they were not minors at the time of allotment as they were above age of 18. According to them, the appellant no. 1 was born on 3.10.54 and the appellant no. 2 on 17.5.57. Thus, on the date of allotment, both of them were above 18. In support of their case, they have produced their respective horoscopes before the Collector. The Collector, Sirohi in turn conducted enquiry through S.D.O. regarding their birth dates. The S.D.O. submitted his report along with certified copy of the certificates issued by the school where both the petitioners were admitted. According to their school certificates, their dates of birth were 12.7.59 and 20.10.60 respectively. Considering the relevant material placed before him, the Collector gave preference to the School leaving certificates rather than horoscopes produced by them on the ground that they were not bearing any signatures. He also found that the petitioners have committed breach of allotment conditions inasmuch as they did not cultivate atleast 50% of land in the first year of allotment. Accordingly, the said allotment orders dt. 28.12.75 were set aside on 7.8.78. The same was challenged before Revenue appellate Authority and then before the Board of Revenue without any success. Therefore, the Appellants filed Writ Petition no. 4213/96 before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16.11.2000. Hence, this special appeal.

(5). From the impugned order dated 27.9.96 passed by the Board of Revenue, it is clear that the Board of Revenue preferred to rely upon the school level certificates to the appellants in view of the oral evidence of their father and refused to place reliance on the horoscope. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by the Board of Revenue which is as under:-

^^vihykFkhZ dk ;g rdZ fd muds }kjkizLrqr tue if=dkvksa esa vafdr t Ue frfFk;ksa lgh gS ;g Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX;ugha gS D;ksafd ;fn okLro esa tUe if=dk esa vafdr dh xbZ gh lgh tUe frfFk;ka gSrks fo|ky; esa Hkh ;g gh frfFk tUe frfFk ds :i esa ntZ gksuh pkfg;s FkhAvihykFkhZx.k ds firk us vius 'kiFk i= eas dkWye ua- 4 eas ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fdmlus Lo;a us vius cPPkksa dh tUe frfFk ,oa mez ntZ djokbZ Fkh ysfdu vUnkt] lsntZ djokbZ FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa tc fd mihykFkhZx.k ds firk Lo;a tUe frfFk ,oamez ntZ djokbZ Fkh ysfdu vUnt] ls ntZ djokbZ FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa tc fdvihykFkhZx.k ds firk Lo;a tUe frfFk dks gh ekU;rk nh tkosxh u fd vihykFkhZx.k }kjkizLrqr tUe if=kdkvksa dksA**

(6). From the above, one thing is clear that all the authorities below have completely overlooked the oral evidence of their father who has stated in unequivocal terms that the dates of birth of his children was given on some impression. It seems that the father of the petitioners was not literate and they are coming from a backward district of Sirohi of State of Rajasthan staying in an interior village of Amblari. The normal practice prevailing in this area of the State at that time was that the birth dates were written as per the will of the teachers. In any case, one thing is certain that the father of the appellants gave the approximate birth dates and not the correct birth dates. It is not the case of anyone that horoscopes were concocted or forged. When there was a specific evidence in the form of horoscope and when there were two sets of evidence, then in our considered opinion, the balance should have been tilted in favour of the appellants.

(7). It may be stated that the lands were allotted way back in 1975 and since then, till to-day for this period of 25 years, they must have developed and nourished the same. Under the circumstances, it would be travesty of justice to dispossess them after 25 years only on the ground that when the lands were allotted to them, they were minors. When that question itself was in doubt, then the benefit should have been given to them.

(8). Coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has tried to distinguish the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal vs. Stale (1), on the ground that in that case, the allotment was made in favour of the minors, who were in temporary cultivation. With respect to the learned Single Judge, we do not agree with the view taken by him. Whether they were in temporary possession or permanent, it would not make any difference because the whole judgment of Brij Lal's case depends upon the continuous possession.

(9). In view of the above discussion, we allow this special appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition no. 4213/96 and accept the writ petition. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned orders of cancellation of allotment of lands passed by the Collector, confirmed in appeal by Revenue Appellate Authority and second appeal by the Board of Revenue.

(10). Stay petition is also disposed of.