Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 699 (RAJ)

Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan

1995-08-03

B.R.ARORA, D.C.DALELA

body1995
Honble ARORA, J. – These six writ petitions raise a common question of law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the disposal of the controversy, the facts of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 543 & 1986 (Ramju Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others) are taken into consideration. (2). Petitioner Ramji Lal was allotted ten Bighas of command land and ten Bighas of uncommand land on 6.10.69 vide Annexure 1. On 17.1.73, the petitioner was further allotted 13-1/2 Bighas of uncommand land vide Annexure 2. The allotment and sale of the land was made on reserved price under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project, Sale of Govern ment Land) Rules, 1967 in the Rajasthan Canal Area. The petitioner deposi-ted the reserved price of the land as mentioned in the Allotment Order itself and the Sanad Annexure 3 was issued in favour of the petitioner on 5.12.81. On 13.1.86, the petitioner was served with a notice, by which the Assistant Commissioner cum Allotting Authority, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Suratgarh asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 23,040.50 p. within fifteen days as the uncommand land allotted to him has been converted into command land. Aggrieved with the issuance and service of the notice Annexure 3, the petitioner preferred this writ petition and prayed that the notice issued by the respondents raising the demand as well as Rule 17(4) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in R.C.P. Area) Rules, 1975, may be quashed and Rule 17(4) may be declared ultra-vires of the Constitution of India. (3). During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has given-up the challenge to the vires of the provisions of Rule 17(4) of the Rules, 1975 and the other grounds taken in the writ petitions and limited his arguments only to the extent that the petitioners are ready to make payment of the balance amount in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 17 of the Rules, 1975 provided the amount may be determined correctly as in the notice Annexure 3, by which the demands have been raised, the amou- nts have not been correctly determined. Learned Deputy Government Advocate does not oppose this offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners may appear before the Allotting Authority, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer and apprise him the correct position. Learned Deputy Government Advocate does not oppose this offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners may appear before the Allotting Authority, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer and apprise him the correct position. He further submits that if the petitioners will approach the Allotting Authority concerned then the case of the petitioners will be considered by the Allotting Authority in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule(4) of Rule 17 of the Rules and a fresh and correct demand notice will be issued to them. (4). As the controversy raised in these writ petitions, now, centers round the difference in the amount payable by the petitioners, we, therefore, think it proper to quash the notice Annex. 3 by which the demands have been raised and direct the petitioners to appear before the Allotting Authority concerned and make their submissions before him and on the basis of the submissions made by the petitioners, the Allotting Authority will determine the correct amount as per Rule 17(4) of the Rules, 1975 and after determination of the correct amount in accordance with Rule 17(4) of the fresh Notices may be issued to the petitioners and the petitioners will deposit the amount of the Demand Notices within one month from the date of service of the Demand Notices upon them. If after determination of the amount, still some dispute survives then the petitioners will be free to seek redress before the appropriate forum. (5). In the result, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are allowed and the Notices Annexure 3 issued by the respondent No. 3 are quashed and the cases are remanded to the Allotting Authority concerned for ascertainment of the amount in accordance with Rule 17(4) of the Rules, 1975.