Honble ARORA, J.–This appeal and the appeals mentioned in the Schedule arise out of the judgment dated 14.1.97 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge struck down the proviso to Clause (viii) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 and held that these rules shall apply to all the allottees inclusive of the allottees prior to the date the amended Rules, 1996 were brought into force. The learned Single Judge further observed that the order of cancellation of the allotment under the proviso to Clause (iii) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A of the Rules, 1975 shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the allottees and sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A shall come into opera- tion from the date the order under proviso to Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule13-A is passed.

(2). Since the facts and the controversy raised in all these appeals are the same, all these appeals are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.

(3). The appellants in pursuance to the Notification issued by the State Govern- ment in the year 1992 inviting applications for Special Allotment under Rule 13-A applied for the allotment of the land. The details of the land were given in the applications. The applications were considered by the Appropriate Authority and the appellant-petitioners were allotted the land by the Allotting Authority under Rule 13-A of the Rules, 1975. The appellants, as per the rules, deposited 35% of the amount and the possession over the land were thereafter handed over to them.

(4). Rule 13-A of the Rules, 1975 deals with the sale of land by Special Allotment. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 13-A deals with the manner in which the payment of the price of the land is to be made by the allottees. This Sub-rule (5) was amended by the State Government vide Notification No.P.4(2)C-1/92 dated 1-3-96. By this amendment, proviso to Clause (iii) and a new Clause (viii) in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A were added. Proviso to Cl. (iii) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A makes a provision for ``deemed cancellation if any allottee fails to deposit the amount of the instalment on the due date as prescribed in the order; while Clause (viii) to Sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A makes the provision for the restoration of the allotment on payment of unpaid price in lump-sum with interest @ 18% per annum. The appellants (writ petitioners) failed to deposit the amount of subsequent instalments and, therefore, the allotments made in their favour were deemed to be cancelled though no specific order for cancellation was passed in the files.

(5). The appellant-petitioners filed the writ petitions challenging the order of deemed cancellation as well as the validity of the amended provisions. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in part, upheld the validity of the proviso to Clause (iii) and Clause (viii) of Rule 13-A(5) but struck down the proviso appended to Clause (viii) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A of the Rules, 1975. The learned Single Judge, also, set-aside the order of deemed cancellation and directed the respondents to pass an order of cancellation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the allottees. It is against this order that the appellants have filed the present appeals.

(6). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that (i) there was no provision in the existing rule 13-A (5) when the allotments were made to the appellants for taking any action on non-deposit of the amount of instalments; (ii) proviso to rule 13-A (5)(iii) is ultra-vires of the provisions of the Constitution as well as of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act; (iii) the amendment cannot be given retrospective operation and, thus, cannot be made applicable to the allotments made prior to the date the amendment came into force; (iv) the alteration in the conditions cannot be made without the consent of the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document