Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1151 (RAJ)

Surati Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2009-04-28

H.R.PANWAR

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 30.7.1998 passed by Special Judge (III), Pong Dam Oustee's Cases, Sri Ganganagar, has been challenged whereby review petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the cases relating to Pong Dam Oustees came to be examined by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisingh Nagar. In pursuance of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 439/92 Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan & Anr. v.Union of India & Ors. decided on 26.7.1996 , the order dated 14.5.1992 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisingh Nagar came to be challenged by way of review before the Special Judge, Pong Dam Oustees, Sri Ganganagar. The Special Judge by order dated 23.10.1997 held that the order sought to be reviewed does not suffer from any error and on the contrary, it is in accordance with law and therefore, dismissed the review petition by order dated 23.10.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Special Judge, Pong Dam Oustees Cases, Sriganganagar has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. What was directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Writ Petition No. 439/1992 Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1996 SC, 3445 , is to nominate one or more District Judges to review all cases of cancellation of allotment to oustees subsequent to 1st January, 1992 by giving notice to the allottees concerned personally, by registered post at the last known address and through the agency of the Himachal Pradesh Government as also publishing public notice for review of such cases in two newspapers printed in the vernacular and having circulation in Himachal Pradesh, particularly in Kangra region; also in two newspapers printed in Hindi and having circulation in Rajasthan, particularly in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony area. Thus, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the District Judge so appointed was required to review and submit the report. 4. Learned Govt. Thus, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the District Judge so appointed was required to review and submit the report. 4. Learned Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the State of Rajasthan earlier filed a review petition before Special Judge being Review Petition No. 98/97 which came to be dismissed by order dated 23.10.1997 and thereafter the petitioners also filed a review petition being Review Petition No. 332/98 which came to be dismissed on 30.7.1998 as barred by principle of res-judicata. Thus, the case of the petitioners came to be reviewed and the learned District Judge appointed as Special Judge for the said purpose noticed that in Tehsil Vijay Nagar, Chak No. 6, B.G.D., Murabba No. 148/373 land measuring 24.10 Bighas was allotted to Chuhad Ram under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land to Pong Dam Outstees and their Transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules of 1972' hereinafter) and after allotment, it was surveyed and during survey it was noticed that the allottee has transferred the said land to some other person and he himself did not take possession of the land as required under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972 and therefore, a case was registered and the allottee as well as the person in possession were served with notices. The person in possession of the land, filed reply under Rule 6A of the Rules of 1972 and stated that he is in possession of the land on the strength of agreement to sale dated 28.3.1987 and 2.5.1990 and since the allottee did not take possession, on the contrary sold the allotted land to other person, and therefore, under Rule 6 (10) of the Rules of 1972, such allotment was liable to be cancelled and accordingly it was cancelled by order dated 1.5.1992 and thereafter the said land was ordered to be allotted to the person who was in possession for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- but he did not deposit the said amount and therefore, allotment order has not been passed in his name. 5. 1,50,000/- but he did not deposit the said amount and therefore, allotment order has not been passed in his name. 5. In compliance of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case was again reviewed, notices were sent including publication of notice in two daily newspapers namely Seema Sandesh and Rajasthan Patrika having circulation in Rajasthan particularly in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony area and in two daily newspapers namely Jansatta and Punjab Kesri having circulation in Himachal Pradesh more particularly in Kangda region. A registered notice was also given to the Pong Dam Oustee and another notice was sent through Dy. Commissioner, Rehabilitation, Talwada Township for service which was got served on the son of the allottee namely Rakeshpal and despite service neither the allottee nor his legal representative contested the case and on the contrary son of the allottee Subhash and Rakesh sold the land by way of agreement to sale dated 28.3.1987 in favour of Rajendra Kumar, Narayanram and Kashiram which was subsequently sold on 2.5.1990 to Nand Singh for a consideration of Rs. 2 lacs and therefore, he was in possession of the land. 6. According to learned Govt. Counsel, under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Officer of the District Judge Rank was appointed as Special Judge for reviewing such cases which have been reviewed and the fact that the land has already been sold by way of agreement to sale dated 28.3.1987 and 2.5.1990 and execution of agreement to sale has not been disputed by the allottee or his legal representative and therefore, such a sale was in violation of the conditions of the allotment under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972 and therefore, was liable to be cancelled and accordingly has been cancelled under Rule 6 (10) of the Rules of 1972 and on these premises, the Special Judge reviewing the matters of the Pong Dam Oustees did not find any error in the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisingh Nagar and dismissed the review petitions filed by the State as also the review petition filed by petitioners on applying principle of res judicata. 7. 7. On close scrutiny of the material available on record, in my view, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted and the Special Judge, appointed by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the purpose of reviewing the Pong Dam Oustees cases in Indira Gandhi Canal Area had jurisdiction to review the matter. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the orders impugned warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******