Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 259 (RAJ)

Billu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-23

P.K.LOHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, who is resident of Rasuwala, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, has preferred this writ petition praying therein under-mentioned reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, the non-petitioner No.2 be directed to accept the application of the petitioner for allotment of land as Special Allotment under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975 situated in Murabba No.196/446 of Chak 11 A.S., Tehsil Vijaynagar measuring 25 bigha. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner against the non-petitioners." 2. For claiming reliefs mentioned to supra, it is inter-alia averred in the petition that the State Government enacted Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (for short, 'Act of 1954') to facilitate better provision for the colonization and administration of lands in the colony areas notified under the provisions. For allotment and sale of land around Indira Gandhi Canal, the State Government framed the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna) Rules 1975 (for short, 'Rules of 1975'). Under the Rules of 1975, there are certain provisions for allotment of land to various categories of persons. Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975 envisage that land can be allotted by special allotment to persons who are eligible for such allotment by order of preference given in Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1975 provided he fulfills the requisite terms and conditions as made applicable under the Act of 1954 and the Rules made thereunder. It is also averred in the petition that the State Government from time to time has notified the land, which is to be allotted by special allotment as per schedule of time provided in the notification under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975. It so happened that State Government notified the land for special allotment in the year 1997 and pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his application on 17.12.1997. Along with the application, requisite fee was also deposited by him. The application submitted by the petitioner was processed and he was called upon to submit the requisite documents for allotment of land. It so happened that State Government notified the land for special allotment in the year 1997 and pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his application on 17.12.1997. Along with the application, requisite fee was also deposited by him. The application submitted by the petitioner was processed and he was called upon to submit the requisite documents for allotment of land. Thereafter, the proceedings continued and ultimately the said application of the petitioner was rejected on 15.03.2000 for the reason that the petitioner has applied for allotment of land in Murabba No.197/456 of Chak No.11 A.S., Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar, which is not part of the notified land for special allotment as per Gazette Notification. According to the petitioner, he was permitted to apply afresh for the allotment of land, which is notified in the Gazette. The petitioner has made a specific mention in his petition that after rejection of his application, he immediately submitted another application for allotment of land situated in Murabba No.196/446 of Chak No.11 A.S., Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar measuring 25 bigha, but said application of the petitioner was not taken care of by the competent authority for a considerable period. For consideration of his application, the petitioner made endeavour to apprise the authority by submitting various representations but no heed was paid to all those representations. On inquiries being made by the petitioner, he was conveyed that his that application is lying in the file which has been consigned to record. In order to substantiate this assertion, the petitioner has placed on record Annex.3 certified copy of the copying application submitted by him before the Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh for obtaining authenticated copy of the application dated 15.03.2000 submitted by him for allotment of land in Chak 11 A.S. Murabba No.196/466 with its rejection order endorsed overleaf the application. Subsequent to that, the petitioner has also submitted yet another copying application but with the same result as the application was not available in the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the application, which was laid in the year 2000, has not been considered by the authorities despite repeatedly pursuing the same, therefore, the directions sought for is liable to be issued for deciding his application. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record, I am unable to accept the prayer of the petitioner. 5. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record, I am unable to accept the prayer of the petitioner. 5. The bone of contention of the entire grievance of the petitioner is his so called application dated 15th of March 2000 for special allotment under the Rules of 1975, which according to him, was submitted subsequent to rejection of his first application. Although the petitioner himself has placed on record the first application, but regarding the second application no material particulars have been incorporated in the writ petition, nor the same has been placed on record. In want of availability of the application, it creates serious doubts about the presentation of the application itself before the competent authority. Moreover, the fact that petitioner remained dormant for more than a decade for pursuing the said application, further strengthens the impression of this Court that in fact no such application was submitted by the petitioner for special allotment. If the petitioner was keen for the allotment of a land under the Rules of 1975, then he ought to have persuaded the authorities after submission of application. There is no material placed on record to show that petitioner has made any effort to persuade the authority for allotment during interregnum period i.e. from March 2000 to July 2013. Moreover, the petitioner has miserably failed to show any cogent and convincing reason for approaching this Court after inordinate delay of more than thirteen years. Delay defeats the equity and an incumbent invoking extraordinary equitable jurisdiction cannot be granted relief for his total callousness and indolence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 , while dilating on the aspect of delay and laches for granting reliefs in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, has made following observations in Para 14 of the verdict: 14. The High Court has thus misplaced the factual details and misread the same. It is now a well-settled principle of law and we need not dilate on this score to the effect that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. It is now a well-settled principle of law and we need not dilate on this score to the effect that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, "delay defeats equity" has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-by to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed in the matter as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise. The High Court as a matter of fact lost sight of the fact that since the year 1952, the land was specifically reserved for public purposes of a school playground and roads in the development plan and by reason therefor, the notification to acquire the land has, therefore, been issued under the provisions of the Act as stated above. 6. Thus, applying the ratio decidendi of the aforementioned judgment and the fact that there is no material available on record to satisfy this Court about the pendency of the so called application of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******