When the grant is made for agricultural purposes, the Government reserves and excepts to itself the following rights '[x xx].
1. Deleted vide No. 3 [12-8-801 Gl THE RAJ. COL. (GE] 1955 Con. 8 "RAL COLONY) CONDITION,
(1) The rights to construct a watercourse or alter an existing walcr-coursc, whenever this may be considered desirable by the Collector after consultation with the Divisional Irrigation Officer.
o [x x x] The right to create or reserve a right of way in favour of the Government or any person or persons or any class of persons or of the public generally, and the right to construct inter or intra-village roads, through or across the said land or any part thereof, and not over a strip exceeding at any point 4 gathas in which, as the Collector. may. from time to time, in public interest or for the benefit of any or all land-holders of the Chak or village or for the protection and maintenance of any property or exercise of any right reserved to the Government, consider desirable and may by an order in writing, dircct:
‘[Provided that no compensation of any kind shall be claimable by the grantec or any other person in respect of any arca acquired or reserved in exercise thereof but in respect of such area no water rate. soil advantage rate, betterment fee, land revenue taxes or cesses shall be payvable by the tenant].
COMMENTARY 11 The powers of Collector are exercisable by the istant Commissioner Colonisation vide Notification dated 11.10.1974. Tle s therefore entitled to cancel an existing way (Rasta) or open a new one. See Pratapsingh vs. Darshansingh, 1993 RRD 283.
12} See also Darshan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992 RRD 481.
131 An existing way (Rasta) can be cancelled or opened a new one but in doing so, proceeding should be taken in conformity with the principles of natural justice i, after fully hearing persons over whose khatedari lands the Rasta will run. Ramrikh vs. Daulatram, 1992 RRD 340 |41 For opening a rasta, it is not essential that the officer should personally visit the site. It can be done so on the report of the Tehsildar. who happens to be a revenue officer and in accordance with a map prepared by the patwari after considering the objections raised by the parties. When it is g0 done. it cannot be said that the order is passed without considering the evidence or that it is one sided. Pratapsingh vs. Darshansingh, 1993 RRD
283.
13! Where an order provides for set off in the instalments and also for the payment of compensation for the trees ete., it can be said that the interest of the petitioner has been taken care of. Pratapsingh vs. Darshansingh. 1993 RRD 283.
6] The conditions pertains to the construction or alteration of water courses, roads aceess 1o lands ete. Pow under this condition have been delegated 1o the concerned Sub-Divisional Officers. Tehsildars have no withority or jurisdiction to entertain any application or process such
1. Deleted vide No. 3 {12-8-80], 2 Ins by No. 7 [18-11-1982] Con. 8 THE RAJ. COL. (GENERAL COLONY) CONDITIONS, 1955 615 applications under this condition. Jagdishprasad vs. Badiram, 1987 RRD
279.
171 There is no analogous expression in section 251 of the Tenancy Act. Its insertion in sub-condition (2) leads to the unequivocal implication that the right of way once created by competent authority is not final, and that it is subject to alteration on the satisfaction of the competent authority. The conclusion is that the authority empowered under sub-condition (2) is competent not only to create a right of way, but also to alter and cancel the same. Daulatram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1988 RRD 699.
(8] The sub-conditions specially provides that the Collector may from time o time in public interest or for the benefit of any or all land holders of the chak of village or for the protection and maintenance of any property or exercise of the any right reserved to the Government may consider the desirability to create or reserve the right of way in favour of the Government or any person or persons or any class of persons of the public generally and may by an order in writing direct as such. The High Court in 1986 RRD 373 has held that the new way can be carved out by the Collector in the fileds of the tenants by virtue of powers granted to him under this sub-condition and that he is authorised to create a right of way not only in f(avour of Government or persons or any class of persons or for public generally, but also in favour of a single person. Dayalsingh vs. Jaisingh, 1988 RRD 41.
[9] Where the Collector had passed order for granting way which was already existing on the date when the allotment was made it was held that the latter allotment was subject to pre-existing through fare, roads or paths on the land. Aad Ram and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1993 (2) RLW 393 Raj. (DB).
[10] Where the Sub Divisional officer had considered the inspection report and site plan before creating a right of way in favour of the respondent Nol 1, it could not be said that the order was passed without considering the evidence or that it was one sided. The SDO was competent to create a right of way. Hemraj vs. Rajbala & Ors., 2002 RRD 317 = 2002 (2) RRT 961. Sce also Girdhari vs. Dhanna Ram & Ors., 1999 RRD 386 (11} Land wherefrom permission to have way was granted to respondent was allotted to the petitioners under the Bhakra Project Rules of 1955.
Moreover, Parcha Khatauni too shows that the Chak 6 SNM is a colony under the Act of 1954. Therefore, granting permission to respondent for a way in Chak 6 SNM was proper. Prem Singh vs. State of Rajasthan., 1990 (1) RLW 131 (Raj.), Distinghushed. Chanan Singh & Anr. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., 2006 (3) CDR 2027 (Raj.).
[12] After expiry of limitation the new khatedar cannot initiate any proceedings by filing appeal ete. against any action taken by the previous khatedar. Bhagat Singh vs. Gurvindra Singh, 2007 RRD 190 = RLW 2007 (D RJ 11.
Gl6 THE RAJL_COL. (GENERAL COLONY) CONDITIONS, 1955 Con. 9 GRANTS OF INTEREST IN LAND