Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Order

September 05, 2012. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Dr. Ram Kishan Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr. Zakawat Ali, Dy.GC for the State. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, for RIICO. BY THE COURT: This petition has been filed with the following prayer:- (i) the respondents may kindly be directed not to dispossess the humble petitioners from the land over which they are having their cultivatory possession till the time they are not allotted the alternate land as per the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules 1970 as well as in true sense of the order dated 5-5- 2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court; (ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the land to the humble petitioners as per the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules 1970 by treating them as land-less agriculturists. 2

In my considered opinion the prayers in the writ petition are absolutely misdirected in the context of order dated 5-5-2006 passed by this court in writ petition No.3374/2005, wherein the counsel for the petitioners himself had stated before the court that the petitioners would be satisfied if their cases were considered for allotment of the land as referred to in para No.1 of the Resolution taken in the meeting on 4-12-2004. Reference to the meeting of 4- 12-2004 indicates that a decision was taken in the meeting, chaired by the then Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan Mr.Parmesh Chandra that the land set apart to RIICO under Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which appeared to have inadvertantly included certain land allotted or in the process of allotment to various persons including the petitioners would be truncated and the land falling in Khasra No.218, 220, 279 and 280, village Keshwana Gurjar, Tehsil Kotputli admeasuring

20.84 hectare would be utilised for rehabilitation of persons identified who had stood deprived of rights to khatedari. Pursuant to submission of the counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition No.3374/2005, this court on 5-5-2006 in SBCW No.3374/2005 directed that the exercise for allotment of land under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules 1970 (herein after `1970 Rules') to the petitioners and other similarly placed be carried out within a period of six weeks. 3 Consequent to directions of this court vide order dated 5-5- 2006 in writ petition No.3374/2005, and contempt proceedings for non-compliance it appears that a decision was taken by the Government under its letter dated 8-2-2008 to allot land to the persons entitled. The allotment were to be with reference to the State Government's powers under Rule 17 of the 1970 Rules. All the benefeciaries of the order dated 5-5-2006 have been allotted land within khasra No.218, 220, 279 and 280 admeasuring 20.84 hectare in village Keshwana Gurjar, Tehsil Kotputli. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the State is wholly illegal, and the petitioners as successors to three of the persons are entitled to allotment under the order dated 5-5-2006 but have been allotted land areas far smaller than the original holdings. It is further submitted that the recommendations of the Allotment Committee made on 15-9-2007 are unsustainable as the Allotment committee was not constituted as warranted under Rule 13 of the 1970 Rules. He further submits that even otherwise the order of allotment of land under the Rules of 1970 is contrary to Rule 12 of the 1970 Rules, which relates to extent of allotment to be made. According to counsel for the petitioners the minimum area to be allotted under Rule 12 of the 1970 Rules should not be less than 5 acres of unirrigated land. Reliance has been placed on Jagdish Singh Vs. Sanvarmal [2008 (3) W.L.C. (Raj.) 648] in support of the submissions made. 4 Mr.Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the RIICO submits that Rule 12 of the 1970 Rules is not mandatory but is only directory and submitted that land to be allotted is required not be less than 5 acres of unirrigated land only where it is possible to allot such minimum area of agricultural land. He submits that admittedly in terms of concession of counsel for the petitioners in writ petition No.3374/2005 the order dated 5-5-2006 was passed and all the petitioners were then agreeable to allotment of land limited within the extent of 20.84 hectare falling in khasra No.218, 220, 279 and 280 in village Keshwana Gurjar, Tehsil Kotputli left out by the RIICO, from the land set apart for it under Section 92 of the Land Revenue Act to set up an industrial area. Counsel submits that the total area of land available for allotment to the petitioners and others similarly placed was thus only 20.84 hectares and each one entitled was considered for allotment of land as directed by this court vide order dated 5-5-2006. He submits that in the context of limitation of area of land available for allotment to the petitioners and others (20.84 hectare), it was not possible for allotment of minimum 5 acres of unirrigated land in terms of Rule 12 of the 1970 Rules. He submits that the obtaining situation would entail pro rata allotment of agricultural land under the 1970 Rules and allotment of less than 5 acres as of necessity in the obtaining facts and circumstances should not be vitiated or invite intervention by this court. 5 As far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioners with regard to constitution of the allotment committee which met on 15- 9-2007 is concerned, it is submitted by RIICO's counsel that the allotment of land has been made under Rule 17 of the 1970 Rules, as the letter dated 8-2-2008 under the hand of Deputy Secretary, Revenue Dep would indicate. He submits that Rule 17 of the 1970 Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the 1970 Rules the Government in the Revenue Department shall have the power to allot land to any person subject to the provision of Section 101 of the Act and the conditions of allotment contained in Rule 14 of 1970 Rules. The argument is that Rule 17 of the 1970 Rules starts with a non-obstant clause over-riding Rule 13 and other rules under the 1970 Rules to except the mandate of Section 101 of the Act and Rule 14 of the 1970 Rules. Counsel submits that in fact the allotment committee which met on 15-9-2007 realised the lacuna in its constitution with reference to Rule 13 of the 1970 Rules, and therefore took a conscious decision to refer the matter to the State Government for exercise of power under Rule 17 of the 1970 Rules at its level such that allotment would not be vitiated for non- compliance with Rule 13 of the 1970 Rules. Therefore, RIICO's counsel submits, there is no substance in the contention of counsel for petitioners that the committee which made recommendations, on which state government acted was constituted contrary to the 6 mandate of Rule 13 of the 1970 Rules. It is submitted that in the aforesaid factual context the reliance placed by the counsel for petitioners on the case of Jagdish Singh (supra) is misplaced and is no avail as the said case only declared allotment made under Rule 14 of the 1970 Rules without recommendation of the advisory committee constituted to Rule 13 of the 1970 Rules as illegal. It is submitted that the allotment made in the present case were not under Rule 14 but under rule 17 of the 1970 Rules. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. In my considered view the case of the petitioners has to be limited to the concession made by petitioners' counsel in writ petition No.3374/2005, decided on 5-5-2006, wherein the petitioners were agreeable for allotment of land under the provisions of 1970 Rules within the 20.84 hectare of land in village Keshwana Gurjar, kept aside by RIICO for allotment to petitioners and others similarly situated. In this view of the matter compliance of Rule 12 of the 1970 Rules was not possible, which requires that land allotment under the 1970 Rules should only ordinarily not be less than 5 acres of unirrigated land—the sequitur is that when not possible it can be. I thus find no illegality in allotment of land less than 5 acres of land to petitioners, as the only land available was 7

20.84 hectare in Khasra Nos. 218, 220, 279 and 280 in village Keshwana Gurjar, Tehsil Kotputli and was inadequate for allotment of minimum 5 acres to each of the persons entitled. I also find no substance in the arguments of the petitioners with regard to Rule 13 of the 1970 Rules or the reliance placed on the case of Jagdish Singh (supra) as herein the allotment of land has been made by the State Government under Rule 17 of the 1970 Rules, which rule overrides Rule 13 and other Rules under 1970 Rules except Rule 14. Further this court is also bound by the acceptance of the petitioner's counsel before the court in SBCW No.3374/2005 and the order of the court thereon that allotment to all claimants be made out of 20.84 hectare of land kept apart by RIICO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salkia Businessmen's Association vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation [(2001) 6 SCC 688] has observed that “the High Court failed to do justice to its own orders. If courts are not to honour and implement their own orders, and encourage party litigants—be they public authorities, to invent methods of their own to short-circuit and give a go-by to the obligations and liabilities incurred by them under orders of the court—the rule of law will certainly become a casually in the process—a costly consequence to be zealously averted by all and at any rate by the highest courts in the States in the country. It does not, in our view, require any extraordinary exercise to hold that the memorandum and terms of the compromise in this case became part of the orders of the High Court itself when 8 the earlier writ petition was finally disposed of on 13-2-1991 in the terms noticed supra, notwithstanding that there was no verbatim reproduction of the same in the order. The orders passed in this regard admit of no doubt or give any scope for controversy.” Adherence to the order dated 5-5-2006 passed in SBCW No.3374/2005 would entail only pro rata allotment to various applicants such as the petitioners in view of land availibility being limited to 20.84 hectare. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. (Alok Sharma),J. arn/ All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed. Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.