JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.1999 by which the writ petition was dismissed by referring to an earlier decision rendered by this Court in Gurdeep Singh v. Pong Dam Oustees Matters, Sri Ganganagar reported in 1993(3) WLC 607 . The Order under appeal does not notice other facts, hence we consider it apposite to refer to the facts relating to this appeal. 2. The land in question was allotted in favour of three brothers namely, Jai Singh, Ram Singh and Shanker Singh. all son of Gurbhaj Singh, of whom Jai Singh is reported. to have died, under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Area) Rules, 1972. The allotment was made on 10.4.1973. The Halka Patwari reported on 16.12.1991 that during the survey of lands allotted to Pong Dam Oustees, it was found that the allottees were not themselves in possession of the land, but it has been transferred to Gurmeet Singh son of Darshan Singh by agreement to sale for three years. This led to initiating proceedings No. 2032/92 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisinghnagar against the allottees as well as the persons in possession. Shanker Singh, one of the allottee, filed an affidavit on 29.4.1992 in which he has stated that he has not transferred the land in question and if anybody else has transferred the land in question, it is not binding to him. He further stated that if a transfer of land is proved against him, a decree for the balance of amount of consideration stated in agreement be passed in his favour for the payment of balance sum which he is prepared to accept. 3. The transferee Gurmeet Singh, in his reply, submitted the copy of agreement dated 25.4.1990 and stated that he has purchased the land in question vide agreement dated 25.4.1990. A reply was also submitted by Satpal Singh on behalf of allottee on 25.4.1992, in which, he has alleged that one Darshan Singh is in wrongful possession of the land in question and copies of Petitions sent to Prime Minister and the Chief Minister by said Satpal Singh were also placed. 4. The purchaser and person in possession of land moved an application under Rule 6-A, which was newly inserted in the Rules of 1972, for making special allotment in his favour. 4. The purchaser and person in possession of land moved an application under Rule 6-A, which was newly inserted in the Rules of 1972, for making special allotment in his favour. 5. With these material, the Sub-Divisional Officer, in the first instance by his order dated 12.5.1992 cancelled the allotment made in favour of allottees and directed reversion of the land in question to the State Government and on the very same day, by a separate order, made special allotment of the land in question to the buyer in possession for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 6. Subsequent thereto, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan and Another v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1996 SC 3445 , the proceedings were reopened for review in terms of the directions in the said judgment. 7. On behalf of the allottees, it was stated that Gurmeet Singh has prepared a forged agreement dated 22.6.1990 on that basis he has procured transfer of the land in question in his favour. In support of this plea, it was stated by Malkiyat Singh son of Jai Singh that his father died on 24.8.1982, one of the original allottee, and his father had ⅓rd share in the land in question and Gurmeet Singh during the Survey Campaign of 1992 has got the allotment surreptitiously cancelled and got the land transferred to him by paying the amount under the special allotment order. Shanker Singh also submitted a reply and an application to the same effect. This plea was denied by Gurmeet Singh and he submitted that the land in question was transferred validly in his favour under the agreement dated 22.6.1990 by the allottees. It was also pleaded by the respondent-buyer before the Special Tribunal appointed under the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no prohibition under the law for regularising the land, which has come in possession of the transferee under an effective transfer, notwithstanding the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared Rule 6-A to be invalid, the consequence of which is only cancellation of the special allotment but the person is otherwise entitled to retain his possession against the allottees in term of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and get it regularised from the authority under the Colonization Act. The allottees examined on their behalf AW-1 Satpal Singh and AW-2 Acchar Singh stated to be the power of attorney holder of Ram Singh and Shanker Singh their respective sons. On behalf of the transferee, Jangir Singh was examined and agreement and affidavits were filed. Satpal Singh in his statement admitted that a dispute is going on between the parties since 1987. While he denies that any of the allottees sold the land in question to Darshan Singh or Gurmeet Singh, he admits that he has filed a suit against Darshan Singh in respect of land. Said suit was compromised on 22.6.1990. He also admits that since 1987 the share of Ram Singh was given on rent to Darshan Singh for yearly rent of Rs. 2500/-. For five years the contract continued. In 1991 when he wanted to change the contract, the forged agreement to sale was prepared. However, he admits that allottees came to know about the deed in 1992 when S.D.O. took proceedings to cancel the allotment for such illegal transfers but no action was taken to challenge the said transfer. He says that compromise was not in Court and he did not go to Court after compromise took place out of Court. The application made in 1997 is on behalf of all the three allottees but there is no mention of death of Jai Singh. 8. As against this, Gurmeet Singh stated that prior to agreement with Gurmeet Singh, Ram Singh agreed to sale the land in question is established by Ex.2 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,46,000/- were already given to Ram Singh whereas he has agreed to purchase the whole land for Rs. 5,00,000/- vide agreement dated 22.6.1990 and a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- has already been given to sellers and remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was agreed to be given at the time of Registration. He further took a plea, significantly that the land in question is in his possession since before 1976 and he is cultivating the land on contract basis. He also stated that the agreement for sale was signed by all the allottees. Ram Singh and Shanker Singh are admittedly alive. But neither of them appeared in the proceedings to deny their signatures. These proceedings are also persued by Satpal Singh only on behalf of Ram Singh alone. 9. He also stated that the agreement for sale was signed by all the allottees. Ram Singh and Shanker Singh are admittedly alive. But neither of them appeared in the proceedings to deny their signatures. These proceedings are also persued by Satpal Singh only on behalf of Ram Singh alone. 9. The Special Tribunal found that the date of death of Jai Singh alleged to be 24.8.1982 cannot be said to have been proved on record merely on account of production of a copy of the register maintaining the record of death, in view of the surrounding circumstances, until filing of this application and in the application earlier moved in 1997 by the very same person, no mention about the death of Jai Singh has been made. The power of attorney holder Satpal Singh claims to be son of Ram Singh. He has admitted that since 1987 dispute is going on about this land While denying the transfer in favour of Gurmeet Singh, he finally admitted the ⅓rd share of Ram Singh in the land was transferred on contract firstly in favour of Darshan Singh and stated that the balance money from Darshan Singh was not received by him. It led to filing of a suit on 29.9.1988 and thereafter it was compromised on 22.6.1990. Incidently, 22.6.1990 is date of fresh contract with Gurmeet Singh who is son of Darshan Singh. While Satpal Singh says that on compromise, Darshan Singh vacated 8.05 bighas of the land and it was given on rent to somebody else in 1991 but Darshan Singh's son Gurmeet Singh has trespassed over the land and prepared a document dated 22.6.1990. In application moved by Shanker Singh, there is no mention about the death of Jai Singh but at the end of application, the names of all the three allottees Jai Singh, Ram Singh and Shanker Singh are mentioned and in that application, the possession of the land was said to be with the allottees until 1992. Thereafter, after allotment, it was stated that since the year 1976 to 1978 it was being cultivated by his Uncles and it was admitted that ever after when in 1992 proceedings took place, no report was made against the alleged transfers by Gurmeet Singh or the agreement being forged and no suit was filed against Gurmeet Singh. 10. Significantly, AW-2 Acchar Singh. 10. Significantly, AW-2 Acchar Singh. power of attorney holder of Shanker Singh, one of the allottee, says that from 1987 Satpal Singh has given the land in question on contract to Gurmeet Singh and after Gurmeet Singh paid the penalty and got allotment in his favour he stopped giving the land on contract. 11. Taking into consideration the admitted statement of Satpal Singh who dealt with the land as son of Ram Singh, one of the allottee, and who has ⅓rd share in the land in question, that the land was given to Darshan Singh prior to 1988 and in a suit filed in 1988 about same disputes in that regard on 22.6.1990, the matter was settled and the fact that on that very day, the impugned agreement came into existence and the fact that Acchar Singh has stated in his statement that the land was given on contract basis to Darshan Singh by Satpal Singh and the land was stopped to be given on contract basis after the 5 years of the first agreement when Gurmeet Singh has paid the penalty in 1992 and that notwithstanding coming to know of the agreement dated 22.06.1990, no steps were taken to retrieve the land but allowed the, buyer to remain on land without demur, by a detailed discussion, the Special Tribunal came to the conclusion that the allottees have transferred their land before acquiring Khatedari Rights and before expiry of 20 years period from the date of allotment envisaged in the Rules of 1972 after the first amendment, after a bipartite agreement between the State of Rajasthan and State of Himachal Pradesh was reached, details of which were noticed by the Apex Court and which cannot be gone into at this stage, the transfer was invalid and the allotment was liable to be cancelled. As Rule 6-A has already been declared to be invalid, he directed the land to be vested in 'he State Government. The learned Special Judge noticed that this land is to the given only to those persons still to be rehabilitated from amongst the Pong Dam Oustees, the transfer of land under Rule 6-A cannot operate in his favour. Buyer was left free to move application before State Government to get back the amount paid against this special agreement. The learned Special Judge noticed that this land is to the given only to those persons still to be rehabilitated from amongst the Pong Dam Oustees, the transfer of land under Rule 6-A cannot operate in his favour. Buyer was left free to move application before State Government to get back the amount paid against this special agreement. Thus, affirming the earlier order dated 12.5.1992 and holding the transfer of land in favour of Gurmeet Singh to be invalid and directed the land to be vested in the State Government, the order was made on 9.3.1998. 12. The writ petition was preferred against that judgment by Ram Singh alone through his power of attorney holder Satpal Singh. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as noticed above. hence this special appeal. 13. We find that in the facts and circumstances and the material before the Special Judge notice above, the findings reached by it, that the allottees had transferred the lands to respondent No. 2 in breach of the provisions of the Rules, 1972, is a finding of fact well reached by a detailed discussion and appreciation of evidence and it cannot be said to be perverse or based on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring relevant considerations. Such a finding is not liable to be interfered with in extraordinary jurisdiction. 14. This apart, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment, referred to above, has already laid down the procedure to follow on submission of the report by the District Judge. In fact, the District Judge was to be appointed by the High Court for the purposes of reconsidering the matter of cancellation of the allotments to the Pong Dam Oustees after the amendment made in the year 1991. It was made clear that it is not the adjudication as it is understood in the ordinary sence. The clear directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under:- "For the purpose of such review the State 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 a 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 a 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, should he so find, that the oustee allottee 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." 15. In terms of the aforesaid finding recorded by the District Judge, after the allotments were cancelled, the matter was to be referred to the Committee appointed by the Union of India, constitution of which also detailed in the Court's order. It was also made clear by the Supreme Court that on the assertions made by the allottees found to be in illegal possession over the lands, the lands are liable to be reverted to the State Government with the direction that lands so reverted must go to such oustees remained unsettled. Therefore, there is no room for regularisation of allotment,, allotted by way of special allotment or transferred by the allottees in. favour of persons in possession. under invalid transfers. 16. As a result. this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. 17. However, before parting with the case. we notice that 'in spite of clear provisions of law and directions of the Court, the persons in unauthorized possession are still in possession. This Court has also taken notice of this fact in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 261/1999 (Kashi Ram v. The Union of India & Ors.) and has sought explanation of the District Collector, Sri Ganaganagar as to why in spite of orders passed by the learned Special Judge finding the occupants to be trespassers, they are continued to remain in possession. 18. In pursuance of the order, the State Counsel submitted the explanation of District Collector, Sri Ganganagar alleging that the matter regarding status of Pong Dam Oustees is under consideration before the State Government. 19. However. 18. In pursuance of the order, the State Counsel submitted the explanation of District Collector, Sri Ganganagar alleging that the matter regarding status of Pong Dam Oustees is under consideration before the State Government. 19. However. the Court on 25.3.2004 observed thus,- "We regret to observe that whereas the consideration is for more than four years, State Government has neither taken decision about removing the trespasser over the land in question. As per record, the status of respondents No. 6 & 7 is that of trespassers after the allotment has been cancelled by the judicial pronouncement. He has not challenged the order. If there is a judicial pronouncement, the respondents cannot nullify its effect by not discharging their obligation under the law by not removing an adjudicated trespasser. Such a posture undermines the efficacy of rule of law. We, therefore, direct the respondents to act in compliance and in furtherance of the direction of the impugned order about which respondent No. 6 & 7 are not even aggrieved. In spite of judicial pronouncement, State Government/respondents are not taking action in accordance with law showing scant concern about discharge of their responsibilities. It would tantamount wilful disobedience and necessary action will follow if compliance of the order is not made by 30.4.2004." 20. The copy of the aforesaid order dated 25.3.2004 was also sent to the Chief Secretary to the State Government and the Revenue Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan only thereafter compliance report was submitted. 21. That in spite of the directions of this Court, if the respondent Officers have not taken care of the directions and trying to ignore their obligations to secure the land allotment of which to Pong Dam Oustees have seen cancelled to be made available for rehabilitating the remaining Pong Dam Oustees, the State Authorities have failed to act in accordance with law to give effect to the above directions. To give effect to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for reverting the land to the State Government and make the land available to the unsettled Pong Dam Oustees is trust deposed the State Government under the agreement arrived at between two States. 22. To give effect to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for reverting the land to the State Government and make the land available to the unsettled Pong Dam Oustees is trust deposed the State Government under the agreement arrived at between two States. 22. We, therefore, further direct that the respondents shall give effect to lie above directions of the Supreme Court and wherever it is found that the provisions made for Pong Dam Oustees were not complied with in accordance with law and total allotted lands which were transferred in breach of provisions of Rules of 1972 and cancelled and where such lands were allotted under Rule 6-A to illegal transferee, which special allotments stood inoperative as void as a result of Rule 6-A being declared invalid but still the persons are in unauthorised possession over the lands to be treated as trespassers having been allowed to remain in possession of such lands and the land is not being made secured by the State Government for rehabilitating the Pong Dam Oustees, the action must be complied with within three months. 23. For this purpose, a separate case may be registered for seeking compliance report about directions. A copy of this Order be communicated to the Chief Secretary and Revenue Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan with the direction to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar to furnish compliance report within ten weeks.The newly constituted case may be listed for orders on 23rd May, 2005. *******