RAMESH CHANDRA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner, an ex -service man, has called in question the pregnability of the order passed by the State Government fixing the premium in respect of the land allotted in his favour.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfurled are that the petitioner was recruited in the Indian Army as Telecom Technician in the Corps of Signals in the year 1970. He was deployed with his unit to combat 1971 Indo Pak war and had also spent considerable time on posting in field area on the territorial line of Indo Tibet Border. While serving in Indo Tibet Border he suffered severe fatal injury during Sugar Sector Operations and after sustained treatment he was declared medically unfit and was recorded as a disabled person. It is pleaded in the petition that he has been receiving regular pension as well as disability pension under the Indian Army Act and Rules framed thereunder. As averred in the writ petition the State Government issued a circular No. 2069 -680 -Aa -72 dated 30 -10 -1972 as a measure of rehabilitation of Ex -servicemen/disabled person, war widows etc. for the purpose of providing small pieces of land for construction of houses. Under the said circular the area of land to be allotted to such classified persons range from 2400 sq.ft. (60' x 40') to 3600 sq. ft. (60' x 60'). In the said circular two conditions had been mentioned. The petitioner being a disabled Ex -serviceman had applied for 3600 sq.ft. in Katanga area, Village Ghorakhpur out of khasra 773/1, 774/1, 775/1 and 776/1 in the year 1984. The application of the petitioner was recommended by the District Sainik Welfare Board, Jabalpur but no action was taken on the application for a considerable period of time. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities he approached this Court in W.P. 5016/96 which was disposed of on 11 -2 -99 wherein this Court directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with the circulars. This Court initially had fixed two months time for passing appropriate orders but lateron at the instance of the State Government extended the period. Thereafter the State Government decided to allot 3000 sq.ft. land to the petitioner and passed an order on 14/15 -9 -99 with a direction to the Collector, respondent No. 2 herein, to cause deposit of premium and ground rent from the petitioner within six months failing which and upon expiry of the time thereof the allotment would automatically come to an end. It has been set forth in the petition that he had not yet received the copy of the order and, therefore, he was approaching the concerned authorities to know about the fate of his application. When the matter stood thus, all of a sudden on 10 -3 -2000 the petitioner was called by the concerned Tahsildar who directed him to deposit the amount in question though no particulars were provided to him. However, the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the orders dated 9 -3 -2000 and 10 -3 -2000 which revealed that the order passed by the State Government on 19 -9 -99 was taken up by the Nazul Officer for compliance and the petitioner was asked to deposit. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was shown the order after expiry of the time stipulated therein and was provided a challan to deposit Rs. 2,31,000/ - in the treasury. While making a grievance with regard to the service of the order it is urged in the petition that the State Government has decided to allot 3000 sq.ft. of land to the petitioner not under the circular dated 30th May 1972 but on the basis of the circular dated 7 -2 -98 as has been mentioned -in the order. It is pleaded that the circular dated 7 -2 -93 is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the said circular provides for allotment of only 1800 sq.ft. of land which is an amendment of the earlier circular. It has been averred that the rates provided for ground rent and premium under the earlier circular has to be made applicable to the petitioner but the same has not been done and the ground rent and premium have been fixed on the basis of the circular dated 16 -2 -93 and guidelines of 1999 -2000. It has been further put forth that the Collector by letter dated 20 -4 -99 had referred to the circular dated 30 -10 -72 and had recommended allotment of the land to the petitioner but the Government while fixing the ground rent has ignored its earlier circular and the recommendation of the Collector. It is setforth in the petition that the State Government while passing the order has fixed the premium in respect of various parts in a different manner. It is setforth that the Government has excluded 495 sq.ft. of land as he was allotted the said area as a landless person and out of the rest of the land premium has been fixed in respect of 1800 sq.ft. in terms of government circular dated 16 -2 -93 and for the balance land premium has been fixed on the basis of the guidelines of 99 -2000. An additional premium of Rs. 1,15,000/ - has been imposed. It is averred in the writ petition that while fixing this premium no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is also urged that the recommendation of the Collector should have been accepted by the State Government but as the same has not been done the order fixing the premium is vitiated. According to the writ petitioner the imposition of additional premium has no justification. With the aforesaid averments prayer has been made for striking down the conditions contained in Annexure P -5 and to fix the premium and the ground rent as per the circular dated 30 -10 -72, Annexure P -2, and as per recommendation of the Collector dated 20 -4 -99, Annexure P -9.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Rohit Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.