JUDGMENT 1. These above cited fifty nine writ petitions are the third inning of the litigation. by the tillers of the Kota District against the effort of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation to develop their land with the Help of loans and advances made by the World Bank. In the judgment delivered on 31.8.81 in a bunch of 45 writ Petitions, Gopal Mali v. R.L.D.C. ( 1982 RLR 52 ) . I have dealt in details the various objections regarding the validity of the various provisions of the Act and the Rules. 2. In the second Bunch of 81 writ Petitions, Nandlal v. R.L.D.C. and others, decided on 23.3.82 , I have again discussed in details the challenge to the various provisions and accepted the writ Petitions. while accepting those writ petitions, I have made the following observations; - "Before parting with the case I must mention that the officers of the Corporation have acted with gross negligence in ignoring rule 3 and completely over looking the prescribed form no. 1, even after having the experience of earlier decision in Gopal Mali' s case. ThIs has resulted in dragging the petitioners to this court for the second time resulting in lot of wasteful avoidable expenditure of time and money, the progress of development work has also been withheld. The officers of the Corporation should have been more vigilant and careful. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the State and Corporation should pay the costs to the petitioners and this costs be paid by the officer concerned in each case, unless the Corporation exonerates them on account of any wrong guidance given to them. All these writ petitions are accepted as indicated above with costs amounting to Rs. 50/- to each petitioner." 3. Mr. P. C. Jain and Mr. K. K. Mehrish, who represented the petitioners in the present bunch of writ petitions have raised the following two objections in respect of notices issued to the petitioners under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act. 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ; 1. The notices have been served on the petitioners in the sowing season and, therefore, they are unreasonable and in violation of Section 23 of the Act. 2. 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ; 1. The notices have been served on the petitioners in the sowing season and, therefore, they are unreasonable and in violation of Section 23 of the Act. 2. These notices have not been issued by the competent authority, in as much as an Assistant Engineer, who is not authorised to issue these notices, has signed the same. 3. In some of the cases, joint notices have been issued and this is in contravention of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1977. 4. The learned counsel have relied upon the judgment of Gopal Mali's case and submitted that in Para 43 this Court has expressly mentioned that notices should be served at such a time when the cultivators have harvested the crop sown by them. In para 49 of Gopal Mali's case, this Court has observed as under:- "All the petitions are, therefore, accepted to this limited extent only. The parties will bear their own costs. Mr. Sharma prays that it should be made specifically clear that the Corporation would be entitled to enter the premises after giving valid notice in Hindi. The prayer deserves to be accepted with the only rider that while doing so they should ensure that the tillers of the soil reap their harvest and cut the crop properly and take the agricultural produce out of the fields before any actual entry is made." 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has vehemently opposed the writ Petitions. According to him, a few persons from each village, who have vested interests, are not happy with the general development plans, and want to retard the progress of development works at the cost of the society as a whole, and such attempt for vested interest should not be allowed to succeed. Mr. Gupta pointed out that in each catchment area thousand, of cultivators take benefit of the development scheme of the Corporation wherein various facilities of roads, irrigation works and making regular and rectangular fields changing their levels, are taken up with the aid of various authorities and mostly the cultivators arc given the benefit by the Government and the Corporation. Mr. Gupta pointed out that first a general notice is given well in advance and then individual notices are served within the time before the sowing season starts. Referring to reply in para 5 of Ram Ratan's case, Mr. Mr. Gupta pointed out that first a general notice is given well in advance and then individual notices are served within the time before the sowing season starts. Referring to reply in para 5 of Ram Ratan's case, Mr. Gupta pointed out that in all cases notices were served some where in October, 82 and the sowing season of the crop starts late in November, an I therefore the Corporation has denied the vague allegations of the petitioners that the crops are standing. Mr. Gupta then pointed out that this court has already in the earlier two Judgements taken pains to decide about the validity of the previsions of the Act and the rules and held them intra vires. Even the challenge to Section 23 was repelled earlier. It has also been held by this Court in the earlier judgment that any other officer can be authorised under section 23, and such authorisation is not illegal That being so the Assistant Mining Engineer has been authorised under Section 23, and the authority under Section 23 extends to giving notices also, because giving of notice also is one of interwoven parts of the entry in the field and making alterations, additions, improvements thereafter, all of which is to be preceded by a notice. 6. Referring to the objection regarding joint notice in some of the cases, Mr. Gupta pointed out that joint notices have been given only in those, cases where the holdings are joint and it is obvious from the fact that the petitioners from joint notice have come in joint writ petitions claiming their joint right. Mr. Gupta also pointed out that there are various provisions in the nature of Section 24 and Section 32 of this Act for raising disputes before the Collector for various matters including the notice and compensation. Mr. Gupta also submitted that in case the officials or officers of the Corporation stay the field for more than three months then compensation is allowed for the deprivation of the cultivator from the benefit of sowing and harvesting the crop and he made a tall claim that the Corporation has paid about too croros of rupees to the farmers of Kota District in the process of this development scheme a welfare scheme intended to benefit the tillers of this area. 7. Mr. Jain and Mr. Mehrish controverted the above submissions of Mr. 7. Mr. Jain and Mr. Mehrish controverted the above submissions of Mr. Gupta and reiterated the earlier submissions. 8. I have given a very thoughtful consideration to various controversies raised before this Court for the third time after the earlier judgment of Gopal Mali and Nandlal. In both the above decisions, I have discussed elaborately the provisions of the Act and the, rules and the underlined Scheme and object which is for the welfare of the cultivators as a whole. I need not repeat what I have said in the earlier judgments. and it would he sufficient to say that I have held it to be a welfare legislation intended to uplift the conditions of the tillers of' the soil and for this noble purpose the State Government has pooled various resources and even taken benefit of the welfare schemes of loans by the world bank to the developing countries. 9. In this back-ground. I am inclined to consider that in this third innings of the litigation unless a clear, categorical and strong case is made out by the petitioners, it would not be proper to disturb the welfare plans of improving the fields of the agriculturists by providing them improvement facilities of irrigation, roads etc. 10. The first and foremost objection relates to the question whether notices can be served during the sowing season, and whether they have been served in these case, during the sowing season. 11. Obviously, the Act and the Rules nowhere prescribe the period during which the notices should be served. or the improvement works can be carried out. Even then, in my earlier judgments, I have expressed a desire that the Corporation should ensure as far as possible that notices are served at such a time that the tillers of the soil are not deprived of harvesting their crop, if the same has been sown earlier to it. These general observations in the form of desire of the court normally should be respected by the Corporation, and as Mr. Gupta has pointed out, they have been respected in substance. 12. All these writ petitions have been filed in which the precise dates of service of notice have not been given excepting a few. These writ petitions have been filed mostly in the month oi' November, 82. Gupta has pointed out, they have been respected in substance. 12. All these writ petitions have been filed in which the precise dates of service of notice have not been given excepting a few. These writ petitions have been filed mostly in the month oi' November, 82. To take one of the cases, which I am dealing with, the facts of which I have taken note of in Ram Ratan's writ, was filed on 8-11-82. The date of notice on Annexure-1 at page 16 of this writ petition is 8-10-82 as per a note on its margin. Similarly, in Virbhan's case No. 1830/82. the date of notice given on the margin is 6-10-82. In Modulal's case No. 1869/82 filed in this Court on 1-12-82, the notice is dated 8-10-82. In many of the writ petitions, the notices are undated. However, it was for the petitioners who have come to this court to get the notices quashed, to make express, specific, clear and categorical averment in the writ petition supported by an affidavit as to on what date the notice under Section 23 read with rule 3 was served upon him. That having not been done, the petitioners cannot shift the onus of proof on the respondents in the writ petition. I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Gupta that the allegations in this respect contained in para 5 or other paragraphs of the writ petition regarding the period of service of notice and the sowing of the crop or crop standing are hopelessly vague, sweeping, general and cannot be made the bedrock or foundation for quashing the notice on the ground that they were served when the crop was standing or that the crop had been sown in the field of individual cultivator. If the petitioners would have come out with a specific case giving the date, then certainly the respondents could have been expected to give a reply pin-pointedly on that aspect of the case, but that having not been done, a vague and sweeping allegation deserves to be simply rejected. 13. If the petitioners would have come out with a specific case giving the date, then certainly the respondents could have been expected to give a reply pin-pointedly on that aspect of the case, but that having not been done, a vague and sweeping allegation deserves to be simply rejected. 13. In these circumstances mentioned above, I am clearly of the opinion that the petitioners have miserably failed to make out even a prima facie case that notices were served on them at a time when the crop had been sown or was standing and since even prima facie case has not been made out, it was not necessary for the respondents to rebut it by filing affidavits contrary to it, although in some of the cases reply and affidavit have been filed controverting these facts 14. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that merely be cause notices are served on the petitioners at a time when the crop is standing or sowing has taken place, no law or rule is contravened as such and what was expressed by this court was a desire in order to ensure that there is no national waste of the production. 15. In view of the above, even in those cases where the petitioners have made a mention that notices were served on 30-11-82, as is the case of Mathura and others, or 22-11-82, as is the case of Narga and others, cannot successfully challenge the notices on the ground of violation of any provision of the Act or the rules. Obviously, none of the rules, nor the provisions of the Act prescribe that notices should not be served during a particular season. 16. Now coming to the second point of challenge that the Assistant Engineer is not authorised to issue notices under Section 23 read with rule 3, it must be mentioned that Section 23 in terns contemplates authorisation to any officer for entering into the premises, and before that giving notice for the same. 16. Now coming to the second point of challenge that the Assistant Engineer is not authorised to issue notices under Section 23 read with rule 3, it must be mentioned that Section 23 in terns contemplates authorisation to any officer for entering into the premises, and before that giving notice for the same. Section 23 reads as under:- "23 - Power to enter upon a land holding:- (1) Such Officers, servants and other persons as may be authorised by the Corporation or the State Government in this behalf may at any time, after giving a land holder reasonable notice, enter upon his land holding and carry out surveys and investigations and all such works and things as may be necessary in connection with execution of any project. 2. If the Corporation continues to occupy a land holding for time purpose of execution of works for a period beyond three months, the Corporation shall compensate the concerned land holder for any loss of income from the land holding which he would have otherwise not suffered Such compensation shall be determined in an enquiry to be held by the Collector after giving both the Corporation and the land holder an opportunity of being heard." 17. A bare perusal of the above section would show that the Corporation or the State Government can authorise officers or servants or other persons to enter upon the land, hold and carry out survey and investigations and all such works, but before doing so such officers who have been authorised are required to give a reasonable notice to the land holder. The notification dated 7-2-78 expressly authorises the Assistant Engineers at Serial number 3 for exercising the powers under Section 23 of the Act. As discussed above, the giving of a notice is a condition precedent by such an officer to exercise the power of entry under Section 23, and, therefore, when this notification dated 7-2-78, authorises the Assistant Engineer to enter upon the land holding and carry out surveys and investigations, as may be necessary in connection with the execution of the works, it implies that before doing so he will have to serve a notice, which is the bedrock arid foundation for exercising powers under Section 23 of the Act. All these notices in these cases have been signed by the Assistant-Engineers, who have described themselves and designated themselves as the authorised officers in the form prescribed under rule 3 of the Rules. That being so, the second objection of the petitioners also fails to carry any conviction with me and in my opinion is untenable both in fact and law. Consequently, the same is rejected. 18. Mr. Mehrish in particular has rained objections regarding the validity of notices in some of the writ petitions being, No 1832, 1833, 1891, 1888, 1927, 1958, 1961 and 1963 of 1982 on the ground that the notices are joint and, therefore, they are invalid. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners jointly against the notices which have been served upon them To illustrate, in writ petition No. 1888/82, the petitioners Jagannath and Gopichand have come jointly alleging ill para No. 1 that Khasra numbers 72 and 76 are their khatedari lands. Similar is the allegation in other joint writ petitions. These allegations suggest that they are claiming khatedari jointly as per para 1 of the writ petition. If that is so, the respondents were justified in giving joint notices to them. 19. Even otherwise, there is no express provision in rule 3 or Section 23 that separate notices should be given, although it is desirable. In the present case, the petitioners have not shown any prejudice, even if it is assumed that in a given case the holdings are not joint and separate. The object of notice is to inform them that in their holdings operations would take place under Section 23 of the Act, and it is difficult to appreciate what prejudice can be caused by the impugned notice even if it is assumed that it is an irregularity of giving joint notices. In my opinion even in those cases where joint notices have been given, no case is made out for interfering and quashing those notices. 20. The result of the above discussion is that all these writ petitions have got no substance and consequently the same are dismissed. However, since the respondents have also been negligent in not giving dates in the notices, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs. 21. Mr. Jain and Mr. 20. The result of the above discussion is that all these writ petitions have got no substance and consequently the same are dismissed. However, since the respondents have also been negligent in not giving dates in the notices, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs. 21. Mr. Jain and Mr. Mehrish submitted that now when the writs are being dismissed, some provision should be made by which either the respondents should undertake not to uproot the crop which is standing and permit the petitioners to harvest it or they must undertake to pay the compensation for the standing crop. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the Corporation, in reply to the above request of the petitioners submitted that crop compensation is paid to all the cultivators for depriving them from the benefit of the crop, and that would apply to the petitioners also. 22. In order to remove doubts and to make uncertain things certain, it is ordered that since now by today some crop must have been sown or standing, though it may be on account of the petitioners own action or creation, yet the respondents would consider one of the alternatives and would abide by it:- 1. Either the respondents would permit the petitioners to harvest the crop and do major work of additions and alterations thereafter only, but till then enter fields for the limited purpose of survey or investigation or some minor works or for doing major works in the area where no crop is standing now. 2. In the alternative, if the respondents think that on account of withholding of immediate major works, the other cultivators of the catchment area would suffer irreparable loss, then they would disturb the present crops on the express understanding that crop compensation would be paid to the petitioners. The quantum and amount of compensation would be determined by the Collector under the provisions of the Act and the rules. 23. The above two conditions would apply only if the petitioners submit an undertaking in this Court within a period of two weeks from today that they have got no intention to enter into further litigation and would permit the respondents or their officers and employees to carry out the duties and functions, mentioned above. The above undertaking can be filed by the learned counsel on behalf of their clients. 24. All writ petitions are dismissed. *******