IMPORTANT POINT
The notification dated 12th March, 1992 amending the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972, and, consequently, the substitution of 25 years for 20 years in the proviso to Rule 6(3) and the introduction of Rule 6A are quashed and set aside.

Headnote:Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972-Rules 3, 4 and 6-Notification dated 12th March, 1992 amending Rules - Writ Petition for quashing Notification-Allowed-Notification dated 12.3.1992 quashed-Substituion of 25 years for 20 years in proviso to Rule 6(3) and introduction of Rule 6-A set aside-Cases of all cancellations of allotments to oustees subsequent to 1.1.1992 shall be reviewed by District Judge-A committee shall be constituted for settlement in command area of Indira Gandhi Canal Colony in Rajathan of all oustees who have secured certificate of eligibility from State of Himachal Pradesh except those who have forfeited it-Directions of Committee shall be binding on State of Rajasthan.
       Held : Allotment of the lands took place in 1973-75; this is the State of Rajasthan s case. That the allottees would not be able to sell the land allotted to them for a period of 20 years after allotment was a stipulation agreed to between the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. It was upon that stipulation that the allottees were allotted the land and paid its price. When the 20 years period was nearing completion in 1992 the State of Rajasthan unilaterally increased the period by 5 years by amending the proviso to Rule 6(3). The State of Rajasthan could not change unilaterally what was the subject of agreement as aforestated; besides, the right to sell the land after 20 years vested in the allottee and could not be divested. As will become clear, there is substance in the plea of the State of Himachal Pradesh that the period had been increased with a view to gain time to cancel allotments on the pretext that the oustees had breached one or other condition of allotment and that the amendment is a mala fide exercise of power. Rule 6-A, newly introduced in 1992, needs to be considered in a wider context. Suffice it to say now that it is bad because the land reserved for oustees must go, on reversion to the State of Rajasthan, to such oustees as remained unsettled. (Para 19)
       That the provisions of Rules 6(4), (5) and (6) have been mis-used has been indicated in Rule 8-AAA itself and in the affidavit of the State of Rajasthan filed pursuant to the order of 22nd February, 1996; Rule 8-AAA provides for the review of all orders of cancellation under Rule 6(4) where, subsequently, orders under Rule 8-AAA had been issued "except those orders which were passed after hearing the allottee in person". It had been decided in 1992, as the affidavit of the State of Rajasthan shows, to regularise the possession of the Rajasthan is who were in possession of lands allotted to oustees. It was for that purpose that Section 6-A was then incorporated. Rule 8-AAA was required to be introduced within a few months thereafter because the State of Himachal Pradesh complained of its blatant misuse and a review of cancellations was agreed to. (Para 20)
       Moreover, where Rule 6-A was applied and a Rajasthani was in possession, the review under Rule 8-AAA was to be made suo motu; otherwise, the oustee allottee whose allotment had been cancelled by the application of Rules 6(4), (5) and (6) was required to make an application for review within 60 days of Rule 8-AAA coming into force. It is reasonable to assume that upon dispossession the oustee allottee would have retreated to his native State of Himachal Pradesh. It is manifestly absurd to expect him to read the Rajasthan Gazette and make a review application under the provisions of Rule 8-AAA within 60 days of its publication. The provision for review in Rule 8-AAA where Rule 6A has not been applied is illusory : the agreement between the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh in this behalf is not honoured. (Para 21)
       Further held : We think that directions are necessary if the oustees are to get their due; we are left in no doubt that the State of Rajasthan has disfavoured them and favoured the Rajasthani and has made rules and implemented them with that in mind. (Para 23)
       The notification dated 12th March, 1992 amending the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972, and, consequently, the substitution of 25 years for 20 years in the proviso to Rule 6(3) and the introduction of Rule 6-A are quashed and set aside. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT

Bharucha, J.-This is a writ petition seeking the quashing of a notification dated 12th March, 1992, issued by the State of Rajasthan, amending the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972. The writ petition also seeks directions to the State of Rajasthan to recognise allottees of land allotted to them as Khatedars immediately on the expiry of ten years from the date of original allotment; to withdraw the cancellation of allotments where allotments had already been cancelled; and to allot land to oustees who had not yet been allotted any.

2. Construction work on the Pong Dam on the river Beas commenced in the year 1960. The land whose acquisition was requisite for the purpose then fell within the State of Punjab. After the reorganisation of State boundaries on 1st November, 1966, that land fell within the territorial limits of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Although the waters impounded by the Pong Dam were within the State of Himachal Pradesh, the benefit thereof accrued to a dominant extent to the State of Rajasthan.

3. The problems thrown up by the acquisition of the land were consideration first between representatives of the States of Rajasthan and Punjab. On 20th August, 1962, at a meeting with the then Union Secretary for Irrigation and Power and the representatives of these two States, it was agreed that oustees of the Pong Dam, the Rajasthan Feeder and the Beas Sutlej Link would be eligible for allotment of land in the Rajasthan Canal area, i.e., in the State of Rajasthan. Meetings were then held between representatives of Union Ministry of Irrigation & Power and representatives of the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh from time to time. The Government of Himchal Pradesh estimated in 1969 that a total number of 20722 persons would be ousted by reason of the acquisition and gave this figure to the committee of Secretaries. It was accepted by the committee and placed before the Committee of the concerned Chief Ministers. These figures were not questioned by the Rajasthan Government. There were some difficulties that then arose between the two States. The concerned Chief Ministers decided that the matter be finally left to the Cabinet Secretary. The main points of dispute related to the eligibility for allotment of land for resettlement and the eligibility of successors to land holders who had lawfully inherited land owning rights after 1961. The definition of oustee had been mutually agreed to be, so far as is relevant, this :

"For the purposes of resettlement of and oustee from the Beas Project area, one must be a person residing permanently within the area acquired for the construction of the Beas Project either with effect from or, earlier than the 31st March, 1961, whether as a land-owner, tenant, landless labourer or an artisan."

At a meeting held on 3/4 September, 1970, the Chief Ministers had agreed that, irrespective of the extent of land acquired from an oustee, an oustee family would be given an allotment of 15.625 acres. This was based upon the view of the Planning Commission about viable holdings for the purposes of agriculture. On 14th December, 1968, the concerned Chief Ministers agreed that artisans, labourers, landless tenants, etc. would be given house sites within the abadi areas but no land as such, and the abadi areas were to be included in the total of 3.25 lakhs acres to be set apart for oustees in the Rajasthan Canal Project area. The oustees were to pay a concessional price for the land allotted to them, the basis being the price payable by Rajasthani landless labour allotted land in the area. The Rajasthan Colonisation Department was expected to provide housing, roads, water supply, etc. for the houses that were to be paid for by the oustees. It was agreed on 3rd/4th September, 1970 by the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, at a meeting of the Chief Ministers of the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday