Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 354 (RAJ)

Amar Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-07

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioners purchased a land situated in Murba No. 52 of Chak No. 4-U, Tehsil Karanpur from one Sh. Kashiram who was a displaced person. The land referred to above was allotted to him under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The land was purchased by the petitioners on 25.04.1973. The District Rehabilitation Officer initiated proceedings under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1954 to cancel the lease said to be made in favour of Sh. Kashiram. By an order dated 19.05.1993 a receiver was appointed in respect of the land mentioned above. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order appointing receiver preferred an appeal before the Addl. Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar which was disposed of by an order dated 23.06.1983 and the matter was remanded to the original Court for its adjudication afresh by petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.1983 preferred a revision petition as prescribed under Section 24 of the Act of 1954 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 28.01.1986 accepted the revision petition and the orders passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Sriganganagar dt. 19.05.1983 and the order passed by the Addl. Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner dt. 23.06.1983 were quashed. The Revenue Appellate Authority while accepting the revision petition also issued direction to issue Sanad in favour of the petitioner for the land in question measuring 12 bighas 10 biswa. 2. The validity of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Sriganganagar as well as by the Addl. Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar by way of filing a revision petition under Section 33 of the Act of 1954 before the Divisional Commissioner Sriganganagar. The Divisional Commissioner accepted the revision petition and quashed the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Divisional Commissioner condoned the delay in filing the revision petition as the same was barred by limitation being satisfied by the reasons mentioned in the revision petition itself though no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred. The Divisional Commissioner held that the proceedings under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1954 were rightly initiated against the allottee as he made a default in payment of a sum of Rs. 2050/-. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 010.1996. 3. The Divisional Commissioner held that the proceedings under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1954 were rightly initiated against the allottee as he made a default in payment of a sum of Rs. 2050/-. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 010.1996. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Divisional Commissioner wrongly entertained the petition preferred by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Sriganganagar and Addl. Collector-cum-Authorized Settlement Officer, Sriganganagar as the same was barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay was filed. In my opinion this ground is not available to the petitioner as the Divisional Commissioner while deciding the revision petition himself has stated that the reasons mentioned in revision petition itself are sufficient for condonation of delay. The next contention made by the Counsel for the petitioner is that the default of Rs. 2050/-was never admitted by the petitioner or even by Sh. Kashiram. On the contrary it was found by the Revenue Appellate Authority while adjudicating the revision petition which was decided on 28.01.1986 that cost of the land was already realised and the finding in this regard was given in following words: s";g dher olwy gks pqdh gS ,lh fLFkfr esa lun [kjhnkjku fuxjkuh xqtkj ds uke ls tkjh djus esa dksbZ dkuwuh vM+pu ugha gSA" 4. In alternate the Counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the land in question is in possession since 1973 and therefore, equity also requires that he be allowed to retain the land in question and for that purpose he is ready to make the payment of amount with interest. The Counsel for the petitioner heavily placed reliance upon a Division Benchs Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kartar Singh vs. Union of India reported in 1989 (1) RLW 678. In the aforesaid case Division Bench of this Court declared the petitioners entitled to retain possession of the land provided they make payment of balance amount with interest. Relevant portion of the Judgment referred above reads as under: 3. The present petitioners are the transferees. Indrasingh and Mahendrasingh got the land allotted as claimants, but ultimately their claim was rejected. Thereafter, on intimation by the Settlement Officer, the original allottees deposited a sum of Rs. Relevant portion of the Judgment referred above reads as under: 3. The present petitioners are the transferees. Indrasingh and Mahendrasingh got the land allotted as claimants, but ultimately their claim was rejected. Thereafter, on intimation by the Settlement Officer, the original allottees deposited a sum of Rs. 6500/-against the demand of Rs. 13,653.31 p. On an anonymous complaint, an inquiry was conducted and it was found that the amount was deposited by the original allottees. But the learned Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government proceeded to cancel the allotment and the Sanad in view of the fact that the original allottees did not deposit the remaining amount. It was stated by the learned Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government in the impugned order that full value of the land has not been paid so far by the non-applicants. It is on this basis that the allotment and the Sanad were cancelled. The present petitioners are prepared to make payment of the principal balance amount alongwith interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum. As already stated, allotted (sic) was made as far back as in 1960. The original allottees and thereafter the transferees are in the continuous possession of the land. In these circumstances it will be proper to remain in possession of the land provided they make payment of the balance amount together with interest thereon at the rate of Rs.15% per annum. 4. Thiswrit petition is, therefore, allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled to retain possession of the land provided they make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 7153.31 p. together with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum with effect from 23.06.1967 till the date of deposit. Counsel for the petitioners prays for two months time to deposit the aforesaid amount. Two months time is allowed. After depositing of the amount, the land shall be mutated in the name of the petitioners. In case the complete amount is not deposited as aforesaid, the writ petition shall stand dismissed." 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the respondents is having objection with regard to issuance of any direction permitting the petitioner to retain the land with him on payment of amount said to be due with interest. According, to him Sh. Kashiram committed a default and therefore the proceedings under Sub-Section (2) of 19 were rightly initiated by the competent authority. The Counsel for the respondents is having objection with regard to issuance of any direction permitting the petitioner to retain the land with him on payment of amount said to be due with interest. According, to him Sh. Kashiram committed a default and therefore the proceedings under Sub-Section (2) of 19 were rightly initiated by the competent authority. 6. In my considered opinion the petitioners are having possession over the land since 1973 and therefore it shall be in the interest of justice and also necessary to meet the ends of justice to permit the petitioners to retain the land in their possession if they make the payment of amount due i.e. in tune of Rs. 2050/-to the competent authority within a period of three months from today with interest at the rate of 10% per annum directions the writ petition is disposed of . The order impugned Annexure-3, therefore, stands quashed. No order as to costs.