- Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 35- Brij Lal vs Board Of Revenue And Others
- Bench: Kuldip Singh and NM Kasliwal
Facts:
- The appellant, was allotted the land in the year 1970 on temporary basis. In the year 1974, he applied for permanent allotment of the said land but the application was rejected on the ground that from the photo affixed on the application form, it appeared that he was a minor.
- In appeal, the appellant placed on record the date of birth certificate from the school where he had studied and also a medical certificate showing that on the date of temporary allotment, the appellant had attained majority.
- However, the appellate authority rejected both the documents and also the application of permanent allotment,
- The appellant lost before the departmental authorities and before the high court
Issue:
Whether the authorities are justified to reject school date of birth certificate and medical certificate as evidence and whether appellant is entitled to get permanent allotement?
Background:
In the year 1974, he applied for permanent allotment of the said land but the application was rejected. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, in exercise of the revisional powers remanded the case back to the original authority for fresh inquiry and decision in accordance with the Rajasthan Colonisation. On remand the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, again rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that at the time when temporary allotment was made to him he was a minor. After that the revision petition filed by the appellant before the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan was also rejected and thereafter the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence appeal by way of special leave was filed by Brij Lal against the orders of the court below as upheld by the High Court.
Judgment:
The court held that there was no justification for the Authorities under the Rules to reject the school certificate and the medical certificate. There was not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the appellant was minor on the date of temporary allotment. The court held that appellant was eligible and entitled to permanent allotment of the land or priority basis under the Rules. It held thatthe Authorities under the Rules and the High Court fell into patent error in rejecting the claim of the appellant for permanent allotment.
