1993 Supreme(Raj) 565
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A.K.Mathur, J.
Rup Ram And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3807 of 1992.
Decided On : 27-05-1993
The State Government has the power to stay the allotment of land under Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, but this power cannot be used to deprive eligible persons of their right to the land.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN COLONISATION ACT, 1954 - SECTION 7, 23, 28 - RAJASTHAN COLONISATION (ALLOTMENT AND SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND IN THE INDIRA GANDHI CANAL COLONY AREA) RULES, 1975 - RULE 13-A - SPECIAL ALLOTMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO STAY ALLOTMENT - CONDITIONS FOR ALLOTMENT - ENTITLEMENT TO POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, landless agriculturists from Rajasthan, applied for special allotment of land under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (Rules of 1975). They deposited 35% of the total price and completed all formalities, but possession of the land was not given due to a ban imposed by the State Government. The ban was later lifted, but the authorities refused to allot the land to the petitioners, citing the absence of a formal allotment order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had completed all the formalities required under Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 and that only a clerical work of issuing a formal order of allotment remained to be passed by the authorities. The court found that the State Government had the power to stay the allotment under Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, but that this power could not be used to deprive the petitioners of their right to the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had completed all the formalities required for special allotment of land under Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975? 2. Whether the State Government had the power to stay the allotment of land? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to possession of the land despite the absence of a formal allotment order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 and held that the petitioners had completed all the formalities required for special allotment of land, including the deposit of 35% of the total price. 2. The court held that the State Government had the power to stay the allotment of land under Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, which empowers the authority that issued an order to revoke, amend, vary, or rescind it. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to possession of the land despite the absence of a formal allotment order, as the issuance of such an order was a purely ministerial act and the petitioners had completed all the necessary formalities.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in Schedule A, directing the authorities to issue allotment orders and hand over possession of the land to them. The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in Schedule B, where the applications had not been processed and the incumbents had not deposited 35% of the notified price.
JUDGMENT
1. :- All these writ petitions mentioned in Schedules A and B are disposed of by this common order as they involve common question of law and facts. However, for the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Rup Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3807 of 1992) are taken into consideration.
2. The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that the respondents may be directed to give possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners which is shown in the Schedule appended to the writ petition. The petitioners have further prayed that the respondents may be directed not be allot this land to any other persons till the decision of the writ petition.
3. The petitioners are residents of district Bikaner and Sri Ganganagar. The petitioners are agriculturists by profession and most of them are landless persons and are domicile persons of the State of Rajasthan. It is alleged that they are entitled for allotment of land in Indira Gandhi Canal Project. They all belong to low income group.
4. The Government of Rajasthan published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 5.1.1001 that land to be allotted by way of special allotment. The correct copy of the Gazette notification dated 5.1.1991 has been placed on the record as Annex. 1. All the petitioners have filed applications for allotment of land to them under special allotment. After detailed enquiry the Allotting Authority i.e. Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner accepted the applications of the petitioners and passed the allotment orders in favour of the petitioners. Copies of the allotment letters have been placed on the record as Annexs. 2/1 to 2/12. In pursuance of this, the petitioners deposited 35% of the total price. But the remaining 65% amount was to be deposited in 6 instalments. The first instalment was to start from the date of possession and every instalment was to be paid of possession every instalment was to be paid after six months thereafter. Rs. 500/- was deposited as earnest money adjustable against the last instalment. The petitioners have completed all the formalities required on their part but the possession of the land in dispute was not given to the petitioners. Meanwhile, the State Government put a ban on the special allotment and stayed all the proceedings. All these proceeding remain stayed upto 13.5.1992 and this ban was lifted by the State Government by the order dated 13th May, 1992, which has been placed on the record as Annex. 4. When the petitioners came to know about the lifting of the ban, they approached the Colonization Commissioner and the Allotting Authority-cum-Assistant Colonization Commission, Bikaner and requested them that as per the Government order the cases in which the allotment letters have been issued and first instalment has been deposited, the possession of the land may be given to the petitioners without any further enquiry. But the authorities did not comply with the Government order and possession of the land was not given to the petitioners. Meanwhile, the respondents No. 2 and 3 issued a public notice dated 23.5.1992 a copy whereof has been placed on the record as Annex. 5 by which applications were invited for fresh allotment of land in Chhatargarh and Pugal Tehsils. When the petitioners came to know about the fact that the lands which have already been allotted to the petitioners have again been put to allotment, the petitioners requested the authorities that since all the formalities of the special allotment of this land have been completed and they have deposited the amount and the Government order is clear, therefore, they should not put this land to fresh allotment and possession of the land may be handed over to the petitioners. But without any result. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. A reply has been filed in the case of Smt. Kalawati v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Wri
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
