Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1639 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Tank v. District Collector, Bundi

2010-09-24

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, white challenging the order dated 3.12.2001 (Annexure-9), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the same and further to direct the respondent to allot/regularise the land in dispute in his favour only on the amount already deposited by him vide challan No. 1009 dated 29.9.2000 in compliance with the demand notice dated 5.9.2000 (Annexure-6). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied before the respondent for allotment of land under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas and Establishment of Petrol Pumps or Medical Facilities) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1978") to make allotment of 10 biswa of land of Khasra No. 267 of revenue village Daneshwar for the purpose of construction of a cinema hall. He deposited an amount of Rs. 2280/- towards the lease rent and Rs. 809/- towards the penalty (total Rs. 3089/-) vide challan dated 31.3.1998. The respondent Collector vide his letter dated 17.3.1998 referred the matter to the Tehsildar, Bundi for making his report and the Tehsildar, Bundi vide his letter dated 16.11.1998 made his report that the petitioner had constructed an open cinema hall on 10 biswa of land of Khasra No. 267 and nearby the said cinema hall, there is neither any temple nor any place for any social activities. The Tehsildar in his report also noted down the rates of allotment prevailing at that time in the area. On 8.2.1999, one letter was written by the District Collector, Bundi to the petitioner asking him to furnish some information's and in pursuance of this letter, the petitioner vide his letter dated 6.3.1999 furnished the required information's mentioning therein that he had constructed an open cinema hall on the land sought to be allotted about three years prior. The land is about 1000 feet away from the road and about one kilometer from the population of village Dhaneshwar and that the cinema hall was being run for about three years. After receipt of the letter dated 6.3.1999 from the petitioner, the Collector again directed the Tehsildar to submit his report. The land is about 1000 feet away from the road and about one kilometer from the population of village Dhaneshwar and that the cinema hall was being run for about three years. After receipt of the letter dated 6.3.1999 from the petitioner, the Collector again directed the Tehsildar to submit his report. The Tehsildar then on 15.4.1999 submitted the required report but surprisingly under an order dated 20.10.1999 (Annexure-4) the respondent Collector, Bundi rejected the application for allotment of the land on the ground of encroachment by the petitioner on the Siwal Chak land and also directed the Tehsildar Bundi to remove the encroachment Against the said order the petitioner filed a appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 14.7.2G00 (Annexure-5) and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Bundi for regularisation of the land in accordance with the rules. Thereafter on 5.9.2000 the Collector, Bundi issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to deposit Rs. 40,800/- towards the cost of the land i.e. at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq.ft. Rs. 3,740/- towards the lease rent from March, 1996 to September, 2000 in all Rs. 44,540/- and after adjusting the amount earlier deposited, by the petitioner, he was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 41,820/- and to submit a copy of the challan in his office so that the land may be regularised. Vide challan dated 29.9.2000 the petitioner deposited the required amount. However, vide order dated 23.5.2001 (Annexure-7), the order dated 5.9.2000 was revided suo-motu on, the ground that the cost of, the land was calculated on the basis of the price index of 1998 whereas calculation of the cost of the land should have been on the basis of the price index applicable in the year 2000 and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to deposit total amount of Rs. 93,268/-. Feeling, aggrieved of the order dated 23.5.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs referred to hereinabove. 3. 93,268/-. Feeling, aggrieved of the order dated 23.5.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs referred to hereinabove. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent contending therein that merely filing of an application for allotment of land would not confer any right on the petitioner to claim allotment of land on the basis of the price index applicable at the time of making application but the price index when the allotment is made, is to be made applicable. It is also averred that the mistaken belief of the officer concerned in calculating the cost of the land on the basis of the price index of the year 1988 is not tenable. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has filed the application for allotment of the land in the year 1998 and the Tehsildar concerned had made a report on the same regarding the price of the land and the petitioner had deposited the said amount as per the calculations, there appears to be no justification for demanding more amount i.e. Rs. 93,260/- on the basis of the price index of 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the demand notice dated 5.9.2000 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. 41,280/- was issued by the respondent after the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection of his application for allotment and thus, there was no occasion for the respondent to suo motu revise this order. The alternate submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent Collector has first rejected the application of the petitioner dated 5.9.1988 vide order dated 20.10.1999 then the relevant year for determination of the amount of cost of the land as well as the lease rent is 1999 and not 2000. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the Collector has not committed any error In demanding the amount as per the price index of 2000 when the remand order by the Revenue Appellate Authority was passed and the matter was remanded to the Collector for decision in accordance with Rules. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the Collector has not committed any error In demanding the amount as per the price index of 2000 when the remand order by the Revenue Appellate Authority was passed and the matter was remanded to the Collector for decision in accordance with Rules. The further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as there is nothing in the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority as to of which year the price index is applicable no fault can be found in the order of the Collector asking the petitioner to pay the amount as per the price index of the year 2000. 6. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 7. In my view the date of order of rejection of the application moved by the petitioner for allotment of the land is 20.10.1999 which was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner and the matter was remanded back to the Collector Bundi for regularisation of the land in accordance with law. Therefore, the price index of the year 1999 is relevant for calculating and charging the amount of cost of the land and lease rent. 8. In this particular case, this Court vide order dated 1.9.2006 stayed recovery proceedings and cancellation of allotment in case the petitioner deposits the balance amount of Rs. 93,268/- as per Annexure-7 in quarterly installments of Rs. 10,000/- each. It was also made clear that in case the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, he shall be entitled for refund of the amount with interest @ 6% per annum. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to re-calculate the amount of cost of the land and lease rent taking into consideration the price index of the year 1999 when the application of the petitioner was rejected and refund the balance amount to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 6% per annum within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced to the respondent Collector, Bundi.Petition partly allowed. *******