Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1290 (RAJ)

Sripal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-02

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-These three writ petitions are being decided by this common order. For convenience the facts given in the case of Prakash Chand Jain are taken into consideration. 2. The Government of Rajasthan by order dated 06.06.1991 allotted plots No. 31, 41 and 42 in Khasra No. 3 in village Jabdinagar to the petitioner under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Saline Area Allotment) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1970”). In pursuance of the order dated 06.06.1991 a lease deed was executed and all other formalities were also completed by the parties concerned. The possession of the plots referred above was also given to the petitioner after demarcation of plots on 20.08.1991. The petitioner started work on plots in dispute and also undertaken the work of digging well and quarries etc. 3. The State of Rajasthan passed another order dated 12.09.1991 whereby it withdrew the order of allotment of plots referred above dated 06.06.1991. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of allotment-dated 12.09.1991 preferred writ petitions and the same were registered as SBCWP Nos. 4746/1991, 4743/1991 and 4739/1991 respectively. The writ petitions preferred by the petitioners were accepted by this Court by Judgment dated 20.02.1992 with a direction for the respondents to decide the issue with regard to cancellation of lease granted to the petitioners afresh by giving them an opportunity of hearing. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court by Judgment dated 20.02.1992 the respondents after giving an opportunity of hearing passed an order dated 112.1993 whereby too the order-dated 06.06.1991 was cancelled, consequentially the allotment of the plots made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled. The respondents cancelled the order dated 06.06.1991 on the count that the allotment of the plots was erroneously made to the petitioners in lieu of inoperative allotments made about 18 years earlier and also on the count that the land allotted was not open for allotment. By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 112.1993. While doing so the petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the notification dated 16.07.1991 issued by the Government of Rajasthan declaring the land in dispute as an open land under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1970 for allotment. .4. This Court by order dated 16.02.1994 while admitting the writ petitions being SBCWP Nos. While doing so the petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the notification dated 16.07.1991 issued by the Government of Rajasthan declaring the land in dispute as an open land under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1970 for allotment. .4. This Court by order dated 16.02.1994 while admitting the writ petitions being SBCWP Nos. 740/94 and 741/94 also pleased to grant an interim order in favour of the petitioners staying operation of the order dated 112.1993. Similar kind of order was passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 632/94 on 08.02.1994. It is stated at bar by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still having possession over the plots in dispute. It is asserted by the petitioner that the plots in question are open for allotment under the Rules of 1970 in view of notification dated 16.07.1991, as such according to the Counsel for the petitioner the reason given by the respondents to the effect that the land in question was not open for allotment is not correct. .5. I have heard Counsel for the parties. 6. The land which was allotted to the petitioner under the Rules of 1970 by order-dated 06.06.1991 was made open for allotment on 16.07.1991 i.e., subsequent to the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. However, it is the position admitted that at the time of cancellation of allotment the land was open for allotment under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1970. .7. The petitioner is in possession of the land in question since 1991 and the land is open for allotment, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the question of allotment of plots in dispute to the petitioner afresh within a period of three months from today keeping in view the long possession of the petitioner and the investment already made on the land in question. 8. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 9. No order as to costs.