Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1628 (RAJ)

Kali Das v. State of Rajasthan

2002-09-19

RAJESH BALIA

body2002
Honble BALIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). The allotment made in favour of the appellant, who claim to be Pong Dam oustee, has been cancelled by the order of S.D.O., (Revenue) Raisingh-Nagar dated 1.7.1992 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner appellant who was allotted land as a Pong Dam oustee in 1973 has transferred the allotted land in breach of conditions of such allotment. (3). Accordingly to the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land of Pong Dam Oustees and their transferees in I.G.N. Colony) Rules, 1972 there was a restriction on the transfer by the allottee within 20 years from the date of allotment in favour of the Pong Dam oustee. However, by notification dated 12th Oct., 1992 the said Rules of 1972 were amended by substituting `25 years for 20 years, enhancing the period of prohibition of transfer of the land by the allottee `within 25 years of the allotment instead of `20 years as originally envisaged under the Rules. (4). This amendment for extending the period of prohibition against transfer of land by Pong Dam oustee allottee was challenged before the Honble Supreme Court Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1). The said writ petition was allowed by the Honble Supreme Court by holding the aforesaid amendment in the Rule extending the period of prohibition against the transfer of land allotted to Pong Dam oustee from 20 years to 25 years to be invalid by referring to the historical background in which prohibition against the transfer of the ]land allotted to the Pong Dam Oustee was envisaged for a period of 20 years as per agreement between the State of Rajasthan and State of Himachal Pradesh, the beneficiary of Pong Dam Oustee project. In view of this conclusion, the Supreme Court further directed that the cases of all cancellation of allotment of Pong Dam oustee subsequent to first Jan., 2002 shall be reviewed by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge to be appointed by the High Court of Rajasthan. (5). Apparently, the aforesaid directions in the context was required for the purpose of reviewing the cancellation in the light of the amendment which has been quashed by the Honble Supreme Court. (5). Apparently, the aforesaid directions in the context was required for the purpose of reviewing the cancellation in the light of the amendment which has been quashed by the Honble Supreme Court. If the allotments were cancelled in 1992 for the reason that the transfer made beyond 20 years of the allotment but before 25 years of allotment would obviously hot be countenanced because of the invalidity of amendment. However, the transfers which were made prior to 20 years of the allotment, the validity of the original Rule having not been disturbed, were not required to be reviewed. (6). In the aforesaid background, the facts of the present case are noticed. The petitioner-appellant was allotted the land as Pond Dam Oustees in 1973. According to the finding reached by the SDM in the first instance and later by the Special Court, constituted under the directions of the Honble Supreme Court, the petitioner appellant has transferred by the land allotted to him under the Rules of 1972 way back in 1983, that is to say within 10 years of allotment. For coming to this conclusion, the Court has relied on the agreement dated 1.4.1983 executed by the petitioner appellant in favour of the transferees. Photo copy of which is on record of the Court and possession of such transferees since then. The only plea that has been raised before the learned Single Judge was that a Sanad has been issued in the name of petitioner on 9th May, 1991 and therefore, he cannot be said to have transferred the land In favour of any one prior to the date. (7). The learned Single Judge has found that the said Sanad. does not appear to have been produced and proved before the revenue, Court and, therefore, no benefit can be derived out of that and for that reason the writ petition was dismissed. (8). So far as the question of Sanad dated 9th May, 1991 being not before the Revenue Court, it does not appear to be correct in as much as the original record was summoned from the Court below wherein we find that a copy of the Sanad dated 9th April, 1991 is part of the record. (8). So far as the question of Sanad dated 9th May, 1991 being not before the Revenue Court, it does not appear to be correct in as much as the original record was summoned from the Court below wherein we find that a copy of the Sanad dated 9th April, 1991 is part of the record. However, the fact remains that the transfer of the land in question for consideration of Rs.5 lacs was effected by the petitioner, by a common agreement to sale and transferee was put in possession is obvious, which is, sufficient to sustain the order passed by Revenue Authority and Special Court. It is apparent that the transfer of the land in question was sought to be made by the petitioner appellant within 20 years Of the allotment made in his favour. Mere fact that the transaction has not been completed by getting it registered would not detract from fact that it was a clear device to infringe the spirit of the Rule under which transfer of the land was prohibited for a period 20 years. (9). Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge though for the reasons different from that what has weighed before him in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.