LALSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESES are two connected writ applications. No. 65 is by Lalsingh & others who are Jagirdars. No. 66 is by Pema & others who are tenants of the same land. The land has been taken possession of by a private limited company which is the property of the President of India, and the State of Rajasthan has given possession to the Company. The present applications are with respect to agricultural holdings Nos. 1 to 26 in village Kavas also known as Madpura and Sar-ka-Par.

(2.) AS the points raised in the two applications are the same, we propose to dispose them of by one judgment.

(3.) IN the first place, it is urged that there has not been strict compliance with this section, because there has been delegation under Sub-section (3) and no notice, as required by the proviso to that sub-section, has been served on the applicants, and their objections have not been heard and considered. The proviso to Sub-section (3) will only come into operation if the Government has delegated to any person the powers under Sub-sections (1) and (2 ). The contention on behalf of the applicants is that the powers have been delegated in this case by the State of Rajasthan to the private limited company owned by the President and as such action should have been taken under the pro-viso. We are, however, informed by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that no assignment has yet taken place. The actual posi-tion, therefore, seems to be that possession has been handed over to the private limited Com-pany, and it has started working; but this can only be as a nominee on behalf of the State of Rajasthan so long as the formal written assignment is not made. Therefore, whatever the private limited Company is doing up to now must be deemed to have been done by them on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, points out to Para. (3) of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which is in these terms' " That as the possession of the land has already been taken over on 24-4-1952 by the Company the non-petitioners have no further concern with the matter and now they are not in a position to do anything. " It is urged that this paragraph means that delegation has been made, and as there has been no compliance with the proviso to Sub-section (3) this Court should issue a writ or direction to the Company not to proceed further till the proviso is complied with. We must say that the position taken up by the State is somewhat contradictory and Para. (3) of the affidavit appears to have been put down without sufficient thought. IN Para. (2) it is said that the Company started negotiations with the Rajasthan Government tor leasing the gypsum deposits in Kawas to the said Company. The Assistant Government Advocate states that the assignment has not yet been formally executed. So long, therefore, as the assignment is not executed, the State of Rajas-than cannot take up in law the position which they have taken in Para. (3) of the affidavit, namely that they have no further concern with the matter, and are not in a position to do anything. Till such time as the assignment is made, all the actions of the Company must be deemed in law to be on behalf of the Rajasthan State which has put the Company in possession. It may be pointed out that the assignment can be made under Sub-section (3) without notice to anybody; but if the intention is to delegate powers specified in Sub-sections (1) and (2) to the assignee, the law provides that such delegation should take place after notice has been duly served on all persons having rights in the land affected, and their objections have been heard and considered. But as there is no proof of the assignment or any delegation yet, it cannot be said that delegation has been made in contravention of the proviso to Sub-section (3 ). 14a. It is next urged that no steps have yet been taken under Sub-section (4) for the determination and payment of compensation provided thereunder. It does appear that no such steps have yet been taken. But it has been stated on behalf of the State that they are prepared to pay compensation according to law to persons whose surface rights might have Lean infringed. The reason why there has baen delay is said to be that the State has stopped all further action with respect to the land in dispute after the ad interim injunction was granted by this Court on 20-6-1952. We are assured that the State will now proceed to take steps under Sub-section (4) for the determination of compensation, and its payment. If is, therefore, premature for the applicants to complain that Sub-section (4) has not been complied with.