Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 573 (RAJ)

Anopa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-21

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted land vide Annexure -2 dated 14.07.1993 as petitioner deposited the requisite fees for allotment of land vide receipt dated 28.07.1992. The petitioner was required to pay 35% of the total amount, amounting to Rs. 61,736/-within a period of 30 days from the date of allotment. However, the petitioner submitted tender for depositing the amount in time on 26.08.1993 as petitioner was served with the allotment letter on 30.11.1993 only, which is apparent from the dispatch number mentioned in the allotment order (Annexure-2). The petitioner after obtaining the permission from the competent authority for deposit, deposited the said amount on 01.09.1993. The petitioner was served with the order dated 13.01.1994 by which petitioners allotment of land was cancelled on the ground that petitioner failed to deposit 35% of the total amount as required under the Rules. The petitioner preferred an appeal to challenge the order dated 13.01.1994 (Annexure-4) before the Additional Commissioner, Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer. The appellate authority after noticing that the petitioner had already deposited 35% of the total allotment amount before the cancellation order, allowed the appeal of the petitioner. However, it appears from the impugned order dated 27.07.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority that before the Appellate Authority, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellant-petitioner is prepared to deposit the balance amount with interest. 3. In view of the above facts and statement of the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner, the Appellate-Authority set-aside the order of cancellation of the allotment of the petitioners land and also observed that in case the land has not been allotted to any other person, it is to be restored and the appellant-petitioner was directed to deposit balance amount with interest. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved against the part of the order dated 27.07.2002 (Annexure-5) preferred this writ petition. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are not giving possession of the land to the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner deposited the entire amount which was required to be deposited under the Rules and the appellant-petitioners allotment of land has been restored by the appellate authority. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are not giving possession of the land to the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner deposited the entire amount which was required to be deposited under the Rules and the appellant-petitioners allotment of land has been restored by the appellate authority. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the possession of the land is not given to the petitioner simply on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that rule provides that the balance amount after 35% of the allotment amount is required to be deposited by the allottee after possession is given to the allottee. It is also submitted that since the petitioner has already deposited 35% of the total amount, therefore, there was no due at any time against the petitioner for the land in question, therefore, there arises no question of payment of interest. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent State submitted that the petitioners advocate himself agreed that the petitioner will pay interest over the balance amount and on the basis of that statement the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 27.07.2002, therefore, now the petitioner cannot challenge the order dated 27.07.2002. 7. I considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is clear from the facts mentioned above that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner on 14.07.1993. The allotment order was dispatched to the petitioner on 30.11.1993. Before that the petitioner submitted challan for deposit of 35% of the amount, amounting to Rs. 61,736/-vide challan dated 26.08.1993 and deposited the amount on 01.09.1993. Since the petitioner deposited all dues by 01.09.1993, therefore, there was no amount due in the petitioner either on 13.01.1994 or when the order was passed by the Appellate Court on 27.07.2002, therefore, any admission of the Counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner shall deposit the interest over balance amount is of no consequence as admittedly on the date when the allotment order was cancelled i.e. 13.01.1994, no amount was due from the petitioner. The petitioners allotment was cancelled on 13.01.1994 and before or even thereafter possession of the land has not been delivered to the petitioner, therefore, also no amount has fallen due from the petitioner which could have been demanded by the respondent and when there was no due amount in the petitioner there could not have any reason to demand interest and there was no reason for agreeing to pay interest by the petitioner. Be that as it may, what has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also, apparently clear from the order dated 27.07.2002 where the learned Counsel for the petitioner only admitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the interest as per Rules. Therefore, also this is not admission of either dues or liability for the interest over any dues. 9. In view of the above the facts of the order dated 27.07.2002 is only to the effect to set-aside the order of cancellation of the allotment order of the petitioners land, resulting into restoration of the allotment order and it is an order declaring petitioners payment of 35% deposited in time only. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and hence allowed. The respondents are directed to deliver the possession of the land in question to the petitioner without demanding any interest on account of delayed payment of 35% of the allotment amount or any amount which is not permissible under the Rules and which cannot be claimed by the respondents without delivery of the possession of the petitioner. The order may be complied with within two months.