STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TARSEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard counsel on both sides. The facts lie in a short compass for deciding the question of law raised in these appeals. The respondents are temporary cultivators to whom government land was assigned on temporary leasehold basis in Gang Canal area. The government decided to allot the lands on permanent basis to those temporary cultivators under Rajasthan Colonisation (Permanent Allotment and Sale of Land in Gang Canal Area) Rules, 1956, for short "the Rules". The ceiling area of agricultural lands was 25 bighas of irrigated land and 50 bighas of unirrigated land. Such of those cultivators who have been in possession between the period from 1953 to 1960 became eligible for allotment of lands on permanent basis on paying the prices determined under Rule 7 thereof. It would appear that some of the temporary cultivators were found in possession of the lands in excess of the ceiling area. Therefore in respect of them, the government decided to allot the excess land again within the ceiling limit to their major son treating the major son as a separate unit, subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in that behalf. The government exercising the power under Rule 9 determined to sell such lands on the market price. The Collector or the Colonisation Commissioner was authorised to allot, on inviting applications, subject to their payment of the prevailing market price. The Collector notified to the cultivators of these conditions and invited them to submit the applications for permanent allotment.

(3.) At that juncture, the respondents filed writ petitions in the High court questioning the power of the Collector to fix the market price. The learnedcounsel for the respondents contended in the High court that having fixed the scales of price under Rule 7, at which the land allotted would be charged under g the rules through GSR 20 dated 4/6/1981, the government had no further power under Rule 9 to fix the market value once again. The Collector was, therefore, devoid of power to fix the revised prices at the prevailing market rate. That contention found favour with the High court of Rajasthan and the division bench in WP No. 85 of 1988 and batch dated 27/9/1988 held that the Collector has no power to fix the revised market rate, dehors Rule 7. Therefore, the action of the Collector was held to be without authority of law and the Collector's notice was, therefore, quashed. Thus these appeals by special leave.