SOWRAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sowran and three others in this writ petition have prayed that (1) The State of Haryana; (2) The Collector District Karnal, and (3) The Naib-Tehsildar, Sub-Teshil Guhla, District Karnal, respondents be prohibited from interfering in their rights, interest and possession as regards the lands under lease with them. The erstwhile Pepsu State owned considerable area of Nazul land including the land in dispute which after reorganisation of the States vested in the Punjab Government. The Pepsu State had framed rules for the grant and transfer of these Nazul lands which are styled as Nazul Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956 and were published in the Pepsu Gazette vide notification No. RD-I(42)SS/56-24 dated 28th May, 1956. In pursuance of these rules the Nazul lands were to be given on lease and finally transferred to Co-operative Societies for the purpose of Co-operative Farming by the heads of Scheduled Castes Families and in case Co-operative Societies could not be formed, the lands were to be leased and transferred to the members of Scheduled Castes individually. The petitioners are Harijans and had no land of their own and as such were entitled to obtain the Nazul land on lease. Petitioner No. 3 and his brother Ram Kishan brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, that certain Nazul land was lying vacant and unallotted in village Rasoolpur and prayed that the same may be leased out to Harijans. The Deputy Commissioner after obtaining necessary report ordered that the lease of unallotted Nazul land should be auctioned according to the aforesaid rules. Respondent No. 3 on 10th March, 1967, fixed 31st March, 1967 for auctioning the lease of the land. It was announced that the lands would be transferred to the Harijans lessees on payment of 90 times the land revenue vide annexure 'A'. The leases of four parcels of land detailed in paragraph No. 8 of the petition were auctioned. Petitioner No. 1 offered the highest bid for parcel No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 for parcel No. 2 and so on which were accepted by the Naib-Tehsildar by his order dated the 25th April, 1967, annexure 'B'. Subsequently they spent some money on improvement of the land. Respondent No. 2 later on directed all the Deputy Commissioners to stop the allotment of Nazul lands under Nazul Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956, vide memorandum dated the 30th October, 1967, annexure 'C'. After some time the State Government decided that 50 per cent of the Nazul lands should be sold by public auction and the remaining 50 per cent by restricted auction to Harijans only vide memorandum dated the 30th December, 1967, annexure 'D'.

(2.) The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 under the law, justice and equity was estopped from selling the lands under lease with the petitioners by open auction or even by restricted auction to Harijans only as they were bound by their own representation and undertakings to transfer these lands to the petitioners on the payment of 90 times the land revenue or Rs. 200/- per acre whichever was less under the rules. It was also averred that respondent No. 1 with the aid of their officials were taking advantage of the executive powers and were threatening the petitioners to dispossess from the leased lands.

(3.) The Collector, district Karnal, in his written statement on behalf of all the respondents admitted that rules were made by the erstwhile Pepsu State for the transfer of Nazul lands known as Nazul Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956, which were later on made applicable to Government Nazul Waste and cultivable agricultural lands which had already not been appropriated by the State Government for any departmental use vide notification dated the 8th August, 1957. He also admitted that the petitioners had obtained lease of the four parcels of land by offering the highest bid at the public auction. He, however, maintained that no assurance was given to the petitioners at the time of the lease of the land that the same would be transferred to them subsequently on payment of 90 times the land revenue. According to him it was made clear to all who were present at the time of the auction that the land was being leased out for a period of one year only i.e. 1967-68.