Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1101 (RAJ)

SURESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-04-27

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 6.8.2005 (Annex.14) passed by the Commissioner, Industries Department and dated 22.2.2007 (Annex.15) passed by the Secretary, Industries Department. 2. The petitioners were allotted various lands under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment and Conversion of Land for Saline Areas) Rules, 1970 ('the Rules'). The said allotment, came to be withdrawn by the respondents, against which, petitioners filed writ petitions which were allowed and matters were remanded back to the State. 3. The State after issuing show cause notice again passed orders maintaining the withdrawal/cancellation of allotment/lease granted in favour of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court led by SBCWP No. 632/1994 : Sripal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. which came to be disposed of on 2.5.2005 and while disposing the writ petitions, this Court inter-alia directed as under :- "The petitioner is in possession of the land in question since 1991 and the land is open for allotment, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the question of allotment of plots in dispute to the petitioner afresh within a period of three months from today keeping in view the long possession of the petitioner and the investment already made on the land in question." 4. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner, Industries Department passed the order dated 6.8.2005 (Ex.-14) and though the petitioners were in possession of 30 Acre land each i.e. 3 plots, ordered that the petitioners be allotted one plot each. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners made representation to the Secretary against the order dated 6.8.2005. The Secretary by his order dated 22.2.2007, held that the order passed was practical and justified. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission before this Court dispossession of the petitioners was stayed. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that admittedly, the petitioners were allotted three plots i.e. 30 Acre land under the Rules and when this Court directed the respondents to consider the regularization/allotment, the respondents were bound to take into consideration the said aspect. However, without considering the said fact, the respondents have allotted only one plot. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that admittedly, the petitioners were allotted three plots i.e. 30 Acre land under the Rules and when this Court directed the respondents to consider the regularization/allotment, the respondents were bound to take into consideration the said aspect. However, without considering the said fact, the respondents have allotted only one plot. 8. Further submissions have been made based on the documents filed subsequent to filing of the writ petitions wherein the reliance has been placed on notification dated 2.8.2007 issued by the respondents under Rule 21 of the Rules providing for regularization of possession of persons, who were in possession from before 15.7.1994. 9. Further reliance has been placed on various orders dated 21.11.2007 passed by the respondents, wherein, when following the judgment in the case of petitioners', various other writ petitions were decided with similar directions, while deciding their cases land/plots as per their possession was regularized on the terms as indicated in the notification dated 2.8.2007. 10. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in restricting the allotment/ regularization to the extent of one plot is not justified and the same, therefore, deserves to be set-aside and the respondents be directed to allot/regularize the land in possession of the petitioners since initial allotment was made to them in the year 1991. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that after the direction was given by this Court, the matter has been considered in the light of the Rules and the petitioners have been allotted plots in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any further relief. 12. Further submissions have been made that the orders dated 21.11.2007 has been passed by the respondents based on the material available before the respondents and the said orders, which have been passed in the year 2007 cannot be relied on by the petitioners for seeking relief in the present writ petitions and therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. A perusal of the directions issued by this Court while deciding the writ petitions filed by the petitioners reveals that the respondents were directed to consider the question of allotment of plots in dispute to the petitioners afresh within a period of three months from the date of judgment keeping in view the long possession of the petitioners and the investment already made on the land in question. 15. The cases of the petitioners were decided in the year 2005 and the representations against the said decisions were decided by the Secretary on 22.2.2007. Where after, following the judgments in the case of petitioners, several other writ petitions were decided by this Court, some of which being led by Gishulal Lakhotiya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1719/1997 decided on 4.7.2007 at Jaipur Bench giving similar direction as in the case of petitioners and pursuant thereto, the respondents regularized plots ad measuring 20 Acre in the case of Gauri Shankar Dhoot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1245/1997, 38.5 Acre in the case of Ridhkaran Duggad v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1518/1997, and 20 Acre in the case of Satyapal Manocha v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1146/1997 by orders dated 21.11.2007, which orders have been placed on record by the petitioners as Ex.-19B, 19C & 20A. 16. So far as the submissions regarding provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules are concerned, the provisions of Rule 9 reads as under :- "Rule 9. Extent of area for allotment.- The area to be allotted for the manufacture of salt shall ordinarily be not less than eleven acres and not more than fifteen acres : Provided that where the State Government deem appropriate, it can allot area beyond fifteen acres. The State Government may authorise the Director to allot area less than eleven acres." 17. The proviso to the Rule is implicit wherein power is conferred on the State Government to allot area beyond fifteen acres and therefore, in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents apparently exercised the said power in the case of Gauri Shankar Dhoot, Ridhkaran Duggad and Satyapal Manocha (supra). 18. The proviso to the Rule is implicit wherein power is conferred on the State Government to allot area beyond fifteen acres and therefore, in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents apparently exercised the said power in the case of Gauri Shankar Dhoot, Ridhkaran Duggad and Satyapal Manocha (supra). 18. In view thereof, the submissions made in this regard by learned counsel for the respondents cannot be countenanced. 19. Further in the meanwhile, a notification dated 2.8.2007 has also been issued by the respondents for regularization of land in possession of persons who were in possession from before 15.7.1994, who came in possession based on valid documents, but were now in possession without legal permission. A look at the orders passed by the respondents on 27.11.2007 indicates that the conditions of regularization as indicated in order dated 2.8.2007, have been incorporated in the order dated 21.11.2007 for regularization of the possession of the persons therein. 20. In view of the above state of affairs, where the respondents admittedly themselves though subsequent to passing of the order by the Secretary dated 22.2.2007 have regularized the possession of the similarly situated petitioners of land in excess of one plot ad measuring 10 Acre only, the action of the respondents in refusing similar treatment to the petitioners is clearly discriminatory and cannot be sustained and the same therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 21. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The orders dated 6.8.2005 (Annex.14) and 22.2.2007 (Annex.15) are set-aside to the extent that only one plot has been allotted to the petitioners. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their possession of rest 20 Acre of land as has been done in the case of Gauri Shankar Dhoot, Ridhkaran Duggad and Satyapal Manocha as noticed hereinbefore. 22. Needful may be done within a period of three months. 23. No order as to costs.