JUDGMENT 1. - This is the fourth round of Litigation regarding cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner appellant allotment of the land allotted under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972. 2. The allotment of the land in question was made in 1977. The Rule 6 of the Rules, which lays down the terms and conditions of the allotment, inter alia provides under Sub-Rule (4) that during the period of ghair-khatedari tenure, the allottee shall not have any alienable and transferable rights in land and shall not transfer or alienate the land to any other person in any way e.g. by sale mortgage, gift, transfer, lease or otherwise. No transfer or alienation of land even in the form of a Nokername, Mukhtiarname, Tebilname, Ikrarname or the like shall be permissible. 3. Initially, when the rules were promulgated, sub-rule (3) envisaged that the allotment shall be on Ghair Khatedari tenure only, but khatedari rights shall accrue in the land so allotted after the expiry of 20 years from the date of allotment or after the full price of the land, together with other dues of the State Government if any, have been paid by him to the State Government if any, have been paid by him to the State Government. Sub-rule (3) was substituted vide notification No. 5 dated 22.4.1982. Sub- rule (3) and sub-rule (4) read together clearly postulated that the land in question allotted to any Pong Dam Oustee under the Rule of 1974 shall not be transferred during the tenure it remains Ghair Khatedari. 4. The historical development of the rule against alienation has been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradesh Pong Band, Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan and another Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 3445 . 5. 4. The historical development of the rule against alienation has been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradesh Pong Band, Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan and another Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 3445 . 5. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 substituted vide notification dated 22.4.1982 reads as under : "(3) Initially, the allotment shall be on Ghair Khatedari tenure only, but Khatedari rights shall accrue in the land so allotted after the expiry of ten years from the date of allotment or after the full price of the land, together with other dues of the State Government if any, have been paid by him to the State Government, whichever is later : Provided that the right to sell the allotted land shall not accrue to allottee before the expiry of 20 years, from the date of allotment. 6. Thus, notwithstanding the amendment in sub-Rule (3) envisaged than. acquisition of khatedari rights in the land could take place before the expiry of 20 years from the date of allotment, the restriction on right to alienate the interest in land continued for 20 years from the date of allotment made under the Rules of 1972. 7. Envisaging that period of 20 years would be expiring in 1992, the proviso to sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 was amended by substituting period of restriction on transfer as 25 years for 20' years. Simultaneously, Rule 6-A was inserted making room for special allotment to the transferees from Pong Dam oustees within the aforesaid 20 years transfers which were made contrary to the terms of the allotment. 8. In the backdrop of these amendments, in 1992 number of allotments made in favour of pong dam oustees came to be cancelled which included the cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 9.5.1992 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had transferred his land under the agreements to sale entered through the power of attorney holder on behalf of the appellant. The agreement was dated 26.10.1990. In favour of one Gurmail Singh S/o Niranjan Singh, who was found in possession claiming himself to have purchased the land in question. The allotment was accordingly cancelled on 9.5.1992 without affording any hearing to the petitioner. 9. After the cancellation of the allotments, by notification dated 3rd Sept., 1992 certain further amendments were made in Rules. In favour of one Gurmail Singh S/o Niranjan Singh, who was found in possession claiming himself to have purchased the land in question. The allotment was accordingly cancelled on 9.5.1992 without affording any hearing to the petitioner. 9. After the cancellation of the allotments, by notification dated 3rd Sept., 1992 certain further amendments were made in Rules. Firstly, vide notification dated 4.6.1992 Rule 67 was inserted making room for land reverting to State Government to be said to persons who had acquired land in breach of Rule 6. This Rule was made effective restrospectively w.e.f. 31.3.1992. Rule 6A enabled the State Government to allot the lands so reverted to it to persons in possession under invalid transfers provided they were Rajasthanies. Then Rule 8AAA was inserted providing for review of order cancellation allotment or the ground of breach of Rule 6(4), 6(5) and 6(6). Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8AAA provided for suo moto review in case, cancellation of allotment was made without hearing the allottee in person and allotment has been made to purported transferee in possession. In other cases, the review could take place on an application that may be made by the allottee within the prescribed therein. 10. After insertion of Rule 8AAA, the case of the petitioner was reviewed and by order dated 2nd Feb., 1993 the concerned authority again cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-appellant. Thus, the order dated 9.5.1992 cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, resulting the land to revert in favour of the State and directing special allotment in favour of the respondent No. 6 and 7 was re-affirmed. 11. The validity of Rule 6A and the amendment made in proviso to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972 came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The Supreme Court held both the amended provisions to be ultra vires and struck them down. It found that the extension of period restricting the alienation of the land allotted to pong dam Oustees from 20 to 25 years is colourable exercise of power by the Rule Making Authority and was discriminatory affecting the vested right and so also the Rule 6A was also bad for the reason of it being giving undue advantage in favour of the transferees in contravention of the Rules, who are Rajasthanies. 12. 12. While striking down the aforesaid amendments, the Court, made the observations to the effect that when the allotment of the land took place in 1973-75 the ailottee would not be able to soil the land allotted to them for a period of 20 years, after period of restriction or alienation agreed to between the State of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. It was upon that stipulation that the allottees were allotted the land and price was paid. When the 20 years period was nearing completion in 1992, the State of Rajasthan unilaterally increased the period restricting alienation by 5 years by amending the proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6. The State of Rajasthan could not change unilaterally what was the subject of agreement between two federal States as afore-stated; besides, the right to sell the land after 20 years vested in the allotment and could not be divested. The provision for review in rule 8-AAA was found to be illusory. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court thought it fit that instead of the authorities under the Rules, it would be just and proper that one or more District Judges to the nominated by the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court review all such cases where allotments have been cancelled which have been made in favour of the pong dam oustees from the date of cancellation falling after 1st January, 1992. The Court observed as under : "This is not to suggest that an allottee would not have transferred the allotted land he may have, but such cases need enquiry because of the possibility of trespass, coercion and intimidation, as suggested by the affidavit of the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be ruled out." 13. It is in the aforesaid scenerio. directing the cases to be reviewed by the District Judge, the Court laid down the sphere of enquiry to be made by the District Judge and the binding nature as under : "For the purpose of such review the date of Rajasthan shall produce before the District Judge the entire record pertaining to each such allotment and cancellation. Even though the oustee, allottee concerned may not appear. the District Judge shall review his case. Where the District Judge finds that an oustee allottee has committed breach that invites the forfeiture of his land, he shall so record. Even though the oustee, allottee concerned may not appear. the District Judge shall review his case. Where the District Judge finds that an oustee allottee has committed breach that invites the forfeiture of his land, he shall so record. Where the District Judge finds to the contrary, whether or not the oustee allottee appears , he shall so record. The District Judge shall also record, the District Judge shall also record, should be so find, that the oustee allotted was forced to leave the land because of lack of irrigation or other essential facilities such as water, roads, schools and medical assistance and/or because of coercion, intimidation or trespass. The District Judge shall send his reports to the committee now mentioned. The reports shall be binding upon the oustee, allottees and the State of Rajasthan." 14. In furtherance of this direction, the Supreme Court further directed that a committee shall be constituted by the Union of India within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of said order which shall have the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Union of India, as its Chairman and the Secretaries of the appropriate Ministries in the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh as its members and was entrusted the task of settlement of the command area of the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony in Rajasthan, of all oustees who have secured certificate of eligibility in that behalf from the State of Himachal Pradesh, except those who have been found by the District Judge aforementioned have forfeited it and they were forced to leave the land because of lack of irrigation or other essential facilities, such as water, roads, schools and medical assistance and/or because of coercion, intimidation or trespass. 15. In pursuance of this direction, the District Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of Rajasthan designated as Special Judge for Visthapit Prakaran, Sri Ganganagar who examined the case of the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner appellant who appeared before the Special Judge took the plea that he has been forcibly dispossessed from the land by the respondents No. 6 and 7 under intimidation. It was also pleaded that he has abandoned the land because of the lack of irrigation and other amunities extended to the land in question. 16. The petitioner appellant who appeared before the Special Judge took the plea that he has been forcibly dispossessed from the land by the respondents No. 6 and 7 under intimidation. It was also pleaded that he has abandoned the land because of the lack of irrigation and other amunities extended to the land in question. 16. After examining the record and considering the material placed before him, the Special Judge, categorically found that the allottee has appeared personally before the Reviewing Authority on 28.12.1992 in proceedings under Rule 8AAA for review of order dated on 9.5.1992 and has submitted an affidavit that he has said the land and received the price thereof. This admission has neither been denied nor explained. Considering the fact that since the allotment was made, until 1990 then agreement to sell in favour of the respondents was made and they were put in possession, the allotted was in peaceful possession with no complaint. No complaints were made of any forcible dispossession or intimidation until the matter came for reconsideration before the Special Judge in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court and not finding that the documents executed in favour of the respondents were forged, held that the cancellation of land in favour of the petitioner appellants was not erroneous as he did commit the breach of the term regarding restrain a alienation for 20 years, on his own admission. 17. Consequently, it was found by the learned Special Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar that orders dated 9.5.1992 and 2.2.1993 by which the allotment made in favour of the appellant Kashi Ram was cancelled are not erroneous and has to be sustained. 18. This order was made subject matter of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1777/1998 which has been dismissed by Learned Single Judge by referring to decision in Gurdeep Singh v. Special Judge, Pong Dam Oustees Matters, Sriganganagar 1998(3) WLC (Raj.) 607: 1998(2) RLR 436 .(Illegible) finding to recorded by the Special Judge No. 8 on the basis of admission made by the petitioner- appellant at the earlier stage of proceedings noticed above which has gone un-denied and unexplained supporting the finding reached by the Special Judge that a voluntary transfer took place of 1980 for full consideration. It was not a case of being evicted by force, intimidation or coercion. It was not a case of being evicted by force, intimidation or coercion. In our view, after direction by the Supreme Court that such finding are binding upon oustees, transferees as well as State Government, there is no room for interfering with such finding by issuing writ of certiorari. 19. The contention that the Special Judge has not examined the issue of abandoning the land without cultivation because of the non-availability of the irrigation facilities and other amenities is not well founded. Such contention has not been countenanced by the Special Judge on the ground that allotment was in phase one of Rajasthan Canal where these facilities were already extended and enquiring into absence of these facilities was required to be made where the original allotment was made in phase II.In the circumstances, the finding sustaining the order of cancellation of the allotment of land to the oustees because the transfer of the land took place in violation of original condition within 20 years of the allotment voluntarily does not call for interference, consequently the appeal must fail. 20. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 and 7 stated that since the transfer made in their favour by the allottee may be against the rules but since the State Government has subsequently transferred the land to them by charging price, then it is independent transaction and that transaction cannot be held invalid. 21. Suffice it to state that the said allotment was made only under Rule 6A on cancellation of original allotment vide order dated 2.2.1992 and since the Rule 6A had been struck down as violative of Article 14 of Constitution, the allotment made in favour of the persons, in terms of invalid rule must also fail. Moreover, the land reverted to the State Government on cancellation of the allotment made earlier to the Pong Dam oustees are subject to the direction of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, wherein the Court has clearly observed while striking down Rule 6A, newly introduced in 1992, that the land reserved for oustees must go in reversion to the State of Rajasthan to such other oustees as remained unsettled. 22. 22. Significantly, the Court made the following observations which militates against sustaining allotment made to Rajasthanies under invalid Rule 6A : "In its affidavit dated 18th Sept., 1992, the State of Rajasthan had stated that it had apprehended hue and cry it the allottees were evicted. Whatever the hue and cry that might arise as a result of having to dispossess oustees shall be the direct consequence of the leads of the State of Rajasthan upon which we have adversely commented. It shall be the duty of the State of Rajasthan to enforce the law, maintain order and ensure that the oustee allottee, his family and his belongs are un-barred." 23. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Before parting with the case, we may notice that in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on 14.1.2004, the State Government has submitted a report stating that the order resuming the land in favour of the State has been complied with by evicting the respondents No. 6 and 7 in unlawful possession of the land in question, despite orders passed by the Special Judge No. 1, Sri Gariganagar upholding the cancellation of allotment to be valid as petitioner had committed breach of terms allotment and transfer made by him was invalid consequently, subsequent transfer was made in favour of respondents No. 6 and 7 by person not acquiring any right to transfer such property.There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******