MAHAVIR PRASAD JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the; Constitution has been filed by petitioner Mahaveer Prasad Jain against the State of Rajasthan The Director of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Mahaveer Prasad Pareck in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner was alloted a plot of land No. 2 and 5 at Village Talchhapur for manufacture of Salt under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Saline Areas Allotment) Rules, 1976'(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of his powers conferred under Sub -Section (2) of Section 261 of the Rajasthan land Revenue Act (hereinaf.er (sic)rofrrd to as 'the Act') The petitioner was delivered possession of the land in dispute on 31 -12 -1975 vide order Ex. A l. The Slate Government also executed a lease deed (Ex 2) of the land in favour of (he petitioner for a period of 10 years. Toe petitioner started the work on the laud and spent about Rs. 8, 000/. The petitioner was restrained from working on the land by the Sub -Divisional Magistiate, Ratangarh on 11 -5 -76. and ultimately, the injunction order was vacated on 10 -5 -78. The petitioner immediately renewed work of developing the land and further spent about Rs. 46, 000/ -. Suddenly, the petitioner received notice, Ex. 6 dated June 9, 1978 from the Director of Industries to show cause why his lease be not cancelled for the reason that he had not brought to notice of the State Government that non petitioner No. 3 was prevented from starting work in the land by a temporary injunction. Another ground mentioned in the show cause notice was that the petitioner had not started the work of production of salt within 6 months of the date, on which he was handed over possession of the land. The petitioner was also directed to stop all work. The petitioner also replied to the notice on 11 -7 -78. The petitioner also received a notice on 4 -8 -78 requiring him to appear before the Minister of Industries on 11 -8 -78. brat the hearing was adjourned to 22 -8 -78. The petitioner submit -ed a representation to the Minster. The order of the Director of Industries, Ex. 6 is wholly illegal and void as the petitioner was presented from starting the production salt because of an injunction order issued by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh. The Director of Industries had no power under the Rules to restrain the petitioner from the work of development and manufacture of the salt on the land The stay order was made without any show cause notice to the petitioner and was thus against the principles, of Natural justice It further appears that the petitioner was heard on 22 -8 -78 bv the Minister of Industries, who passed the impugned order (Ex 10A) dated October 20, 1978 and it was communicated by she Dircc or of Industries, Jaipur to the pensioner by fetter Ex 10, dated October 28, 1978. By this order, the lease of the petitioner was cancelled and the lease of the non -petitioner No. 3 was restored. The order Ex. 10 and Ex. 10A are challenged inter alia on the following grounds:

(3.) IT was also submitted during the course of arguments that the Minister of (sic)lodustries under the Rules had no power to review. Non -petitioner No 3 resisted the Writ petition and submitted that the land was allotted to him as early as on 4 -11 -71 (Ex A/1) and lease -deed was also executed in his favour. Tine lease could not be granted to the petitioner as the lease in favour on non -petitioner No. 3 was subsisting. Tae petitioner never spent R' 46,000/ - on the development of the land, After the lease had been granted to non -petitioner No - 3, he was prevented from starting the work because of an injunction issued against him. Toe petitioner was given mil hearing by the Minister on the application of non -petitioner No. 3 regarding allege grant of lease to (be petitioner. The Writ petition is opposed by non -petitioner No. 3 more specifically on the following grounds: 1. That the petitioner has been guilty of concealing material facts regarding the proceedings before the Minister and the heading granted to him. The petitioner failed to mention them in his original writ petition and thereby he is guilty of suppressing material facts. 2. That non -petitioner No. 3 is entitled to hold the land as the lease granted to him vide Ex A/1 and the lease deed, Ex. A/3 were not determined in accordance with law During the period of emergency i.e. from June, 1975 to the end of 1977, he had gone underground being a political worker and taking advantage of this situation, the petitioner got lease in his favour. Against this illegal order non petitioner No. 3 made representation vide Ex. A/4, dated October 31, 1977 and Ex. A/5, dated March 17, 1978 before the Government and the Minister, after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order Ex IOA under Section 85 A of the Act. The order Ex.1 dated December 15, 1975 (sic)cancelling; he lease of non -petitioner No. 3 was illegal and the Government of Rajasthan had no power to cancel the lease and it was passed without notice to him. Non -petitioners No. 1 and 2 also filed a reply and supported non -petitioner No. 3. I have heard tie learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case carefully