KALU RAM Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI, DEGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Kalu Ram, Has Laid This Writ Petition For Imploring Annulment Of Resolution No.2 Dated 21St Of May 2013 (Ex.8) Passed By The Second Respondent. Besides The Aforementioned Relief, The Petitioner Has Also Prayed For Seeking A Direction Against The Respondents To Extend The Term Of Contract For The Year 2013-2014.

(2.) Succinctly Stated, The Factual Matrix Of The Case Is That An Agriculture Land Measuring 261.72 Bighas And 4 Biswas Situated At Village Harsol In The Khatedari Of Panchayat Samiti, Degana Was Auctioned By The Second Respondent In The Year 2010 To One Lala Ram For Its Cultivation. Due To Famine, The Auctioned Agriculture Land Did Not Yield The Desired Result And Therefore At The Request Of Lala Ram, The First Respondent Panchayat Samiti Extended The Term Of Contract For The Next Year, Which Was Ultimately Confirmed By The Zila Parishad, Nagaur. The Petitioner Has Further Averred In The Writ Petition That The Block Development Officer, Degana Issued A Notification For Auction On 26Th Of May 2010 And Against This Action A Writ Petition Was Preferred By Lala Ram And This Court Was Pleased To Grant Him Interim Protection. Taking Shelter Of The Precedent Of Lala Ram, The Petitioner Has Inter-Alia Averred In The Petition That When The Said Agriculture Land Was Put To Auction For Cultivation For The Year 2012-2013, He Offered His Bid And Considering His Bid To Be Highest, He Was Awarded The Said Contract For The Year 2012-2013 For Sum Of Rs.6,01,100/- Only. After Awarding Of Contract, As Per The Petitioner, He Sowed The Gawar Crop And Invested Huge Amount To The Tune Of Rupees Six Lakhs But Due To Famine And Scarcity Of Water, The Land Has Not Yielded Any Agriculture Produce. To Support This Assertion, The Petitioner Has Placed On Record Girdawari, Wherein The Halka Patwari Has Certified That The Said Agriculture Land Has Not Yielded The Crops By Mentioning The Word "Kharaba".

(3.) Faced With This Sort Of Awkward Situation, As Per The Petitioner, Applications Were Submitted By Him Before The Sub Divisional Officer, Degana And Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Degana For Extending His Term Of Contract For The Next Year I.E. 2013-2014 And In Turn The Sub Divisional Officer Forwarded His Application To Panchayat Samiti, Degana. The Application Submitted By The Petitioner Also Found Favour From The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Degana And While Concurring With His Grievances, The Block Development Officer Also Recommended The First Respondent To Extend The Term Of Contract. Making Serious Insinuations Against The Third Respondent, The Petitioner Has Pleaded In The Writ Petition That Being Pradhan Of Panchayat Samiti, Degana, He Has Conspired Against The Petitioner And With A View To Dislodge Him From The Agriculture Land Manipulated And Maneuvered The Things And In Utter Disregard To The Resolution Of Gram Sabha Took A Decision In The Meeting Of Standing Committee On 21St Of May 2013 For Auctioning The Agriculture Land Which Was On Contract For Cultivation With The Petitioner For The Year 2012-2013. Subsequent To The Resolution Dated 21St Of May 2013, An Auction Notification Was Issued And As Per The Version Of The Petitioner, The Entire Auction Proceedings Are Dehors The Law And In Clear Violation Of Article 14, 19(1)(G) And 21 Of The Constitution Of India. Precisely, For Assailing The Action Of The Respondents, The Grounds Urged By The Petitioner Hover Around The Case Of Lala Ram.