SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Raj) 836

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.K.Lohra, J.
Billu Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12951 of 2013.
Decided On : 23-01-2014

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Abhinav Jain, Advocate.

Delay in pursuing an application for special allotment of land under Rule 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna) Rules 1975, without any cogent or convincing reason, can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition seeking a direction to the authorities to accept the application.

Headnote:

RAJASTHAN COLONIZATION ACT, 1954 - RULE 13A - SPECIAL ALLOTMENT OF LAND - DELAY IN PURSUING APPLICATION - LACHES - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner applied for special allotment of land under Rule 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna) Rules 1975. His application was rejected in 2000 for not being part of the notified land. He submitted another application in 2000, but it was not considered by the authorities. He approached the High Court in 2013 seeking a direction to the authorities to accept his application.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the petitioner had not placed on record any material particulars or evidence to support the existence of the second application submitted in 2000. The Court also noted that the petitioner had remained dormant for more than a decade without pursuing the matter, and had failed to show any cogent reason for the delay in approaching the Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had submitted a second application for special allotment of land in 2000? 2. Whether the petitioner's delay in pursuing the matter and approaching the Court was justified?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to provide any evidence or material particulars to substantiate the existence of the second application submitted in 2000. 2. The Court applied the principle of laches and held that the petitioner's delay of more than thirteen years in pursuing the matter and approaching the Court was fatal to his claim. The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, which held that delay defeats equity and that an extraordinary equitable jurisdiction cannot be granted to a party who has been indolent and callous in pursuing their rights.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that there was no material on record to satisfy the Court about the pendency of the petitioner's so-called application, and that the petitioner's delay in pursuing the matter and approaching the Court was fatal to his claim.

JUDGMENT

1. - Petitioner, who is resident of Rasuwala, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, has preferred this writ petition praying therein under-mentioned reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, the non-petitioner No.2 be directed to accept the application of the petitioner for allotment of land as Special Allotment under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975 situated in Murabba No.196/446 of Chak 11 A.S., Tehsil Vijaynagar measuring 25 bigha.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner against the non-petitioners."

2. For claiming reliefs mentioned to supra, it is inter-alia averred in the petition that the State Government enacted Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (for short, 'Act of 1954') to facilitate better provision for the colonization and administration of lands in the colony areas notified under the provisions. For allotment and sale of land around Indira Gandhi Canal, the State Government framed the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna) Rules 1975 (for short, 'Rules of 1975'). Under the Rules of 1975, there are certain provisions for allotment of land to various categories of persons. Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975 envisage that land can be allotted by special allotment to persons who are eligible for such allotment by order of preference given in Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1975 provided he fulfills the requisite terms and conditions as made applicable under the Act of 1954 and the Rules made thereunder. It is also averred in the petition that the State Government from time to time has notified the land, which is to be allotted by special allotment as per schedule of time provided in the notification under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975. It so happened that State Government notified the land for special allotment in the year 1997 and pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his application on 17.12.1997. Along with the application, requisite fee was also deposited by him. The application submitted by the petitioner was processed and he was called upon to submit the requisite documents for allotment of land. Thereafter, the proceedings continued and ultimately the said application of the petitioner was rejected on 15.03.2000 for the reason that the petitioner has applied for allotment of land in Murabba No.197/456 of Chak No.11 A.S., Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar, which is not part of the notified land for special allotment as per Gazette Notification. According to the petitioner, he was permitted to apply afresh for the allotment of land, which is notified in the Gazette. The petitioner has made a specific mention in his petition that after rejection of his application, he immediately submitted another application for allotment of land situated in Murabba No.196/446 of Chak No.11 A.S., Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar measuring 25 bigha, but said application of the petitioner was not taken care of by the competent authority for a considerable period. For consideration of his application, the petitioner made endeavour to apprise the authority by submitting various representations but no heed was paid to all those representations. On inquiries being made by the petitioner, he was conveyed that his that application is lying in the file which has been consigned to record. In order to substantiate this assertion, the petitioner has placed on record Annex.3 certified copy of the copying application submitted by him before the Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh for obtaining authenticated copy of the application dated 15.03.2000 submitted by him for allotment of land in Chak 11 A.S. Murabba No.196/466 with its rejection order endorsed overleaf the appl







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top