The cancellation of land allotment based on the violation of land transfer rules under Rule 6(3) & (4) and the authority to cancel allotment under Rule 6(10) of the Rules of 1972.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to the year 1998, and thus, listed under the category of “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction.-

I. The judgments dated 25.7.98 and 31.8.98 passed by the Special Judge III, Pong Dam Oustees cases, Sri Ganganagar may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. The respondents be directed to restore allotment of the petitioner on disputed land Murabba No.282/460 Chak 9-A, Tehsil Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar and petitioner be ordered to be given possession of the said land.

III. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted.

IV. Costs of the petition be given to petitioner.”

3. The original petitioner (Hamir Chand), during pendency of the instant petition, has expired, and consequently, his legal representatives have been brought on record and arrayed as petitioners herein.

4. As per the pleaded facts, the original petitioner was a Pong Dam Oustee and was allotted 25 bhigas of land bearing Murabba No.282/460 situated in Chak No. 9A, Tehsil Anoopgarh on 12.10.1977 under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and other Transferees in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony), Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1972’), whereafter, the original petitioner remained in cultivatory possession of the said land.

4.1. Thereafter, a survey was conducted by the Halka Patwari on 19.12.1991 whereby it was found that the original petitioner was not in possession of the land in question, instead respondent no.3 was in possession of the same on the basis of certain agreement entered into between the allottee (original petitioner) and the respondent no.3. Subsequently, a case bearing no.698/92 was registered before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Raisinghnagar, on the basis of the aforesaid report, whereupon, while recording a finding that the original petitioner has violated Rule 6 sub rules (3) & (4) of the Rules of 1972 by selling the land in question to the respondent no.3, the SDM, vide judgment dated 22.03.1993, in exercise of power under Rule 6 sub rule (10) of the Rules of 1972, cancelled the allotment of 15 bighas of land made in favour of the original petitioner.

4.2. Subsequently, a direction was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide the judgment dated 26.07.1996 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.439/1992, to review all the cases of cancellation of allotment to oustees subsequent to 01.01.1992, and accordingly, the learned Special Judge (III), Pong Dam Oustees related Cases, Sri Ganganagar reviewed the earlier judgment of the SDM and modified the same by cancelling the allotment of the entire 25 bighas land made to the original petitioner and ordered the land to be vested in the State Government, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.07.1998.

4.3. Aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the original petitioner submitted a review application; however the earlier judgment was maintained and the review application was rejected vide the impugned order dated 31.08.1998. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the original petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent no.3 to sell 15 bighas of land, however the same was cancelled by Panchayat, after the private respondent did not pay the entire amount, and that, possession of the entire land always remained with the original petitioner; further, the agreement, on the basis of which the allotment of the original petitioner was cancelled, was not a registered document, and therefore, no effect could be given to the said document. Thus, as per learned counsel, the question