SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. SPECIAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have ventilated their grievances in the instant petition against the impugned order dated 13th of August 1998 (Annex.9) passed by the first respondent as well as order dated 9th of May 1992 (Annex.6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar and has prayed for annulment of both these orders. Besides the aforesaid main prayer, the petitioners have also craved for other ancillary reliefs.

(2.) SCORNING the checkered history of the case, the brief facts essential for appreciating the afflictions of the petitioners are that the petitioners' father was an agriculturist owning agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh, which was acquired for the purpose of constructing Pong Dam reservoir and in benefit thereof State of Rajasthan allotted him the land in Indira Gandhi Canal Area by treating him a pong dam oustee in the form of compensation. As compensation, he was allotted 25 bighas of land in 6 BGD Tehsil Vijay Nagar, Murabba No.143/337 alongwith a land of plot in Abadi Area of 6 BGD. The possession of the land was taken over by father of the petitioners and he started cultivation on 25th of July 1973. It was also averred in the petition that father of the petitioners with his family members started residing at the allotted land and continued to deposit irrigation charges as well as land revenue with the respective departments. In support thereof, Khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2040 -43 i.e. years 1984 -85 and the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners is also placed on record. The crux of the matter is that as per the version of the petitioners, the local residents were not happily placed with the arrangements made by the State Government to settle Pong Dam Oustees and one resident Bhoop Ram Bishnoi made an attempt to dispossess the petitioner by threat and coercion and finally succeeded in encroaching over the land of the petitioners. The alleged act of encroachment was immediately reported by the petitioners to the Superintendent of Police and District Collector but no heed was paid. However, as per petitioners' assertion, ultimately the land was grabbed by the said Bhoop Ram and on the pretext of some false agreement in gross violation of the relevant rules got regularization of the aforesaid land in his favour by depositing a sum of Rs.2,25,000/ -. The regularization order dated 9th of May 1992 was passed by the third respondent. Being aggrieved from this sort of illegal action of Bhoop Ram, the petitioners approached from pillar to post i.e. Collector and the Commissioner, Pong Dam Oustees, by submitting various representations but all in vain. During this period, when the petitioners were fighting for their rights, the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered a judgment in case of Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti Vs. Union of India [(1996) 9 SCC 749], whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered establishment of Special Court and to review all cancellation of allotment subsequent to 01.01.1992. The Apex Court rendered the judgment while considering the hardship caused to the oustees and the manner in which the State of Rajasthan proceeded to cancel the allotments to extend the benefit of the same to other local residents. Hon'ble Apex Court, while taking note of cancellation of allotments to oustees subsequent to 01.01.1992, issued directions for reviewing the same by the District Judge to be nominated by the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court. Relevant Para 27 of the judgment reads as under:

(3.) ASSAILING the order passed by the SDO, Raisinghnagar and the impugned order dated 13th of August 1998 (Annex.9), the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Sandhu has urged that the SDO Raisinghnagar has not at all cared to examine the alleged agreements while regularizing the land in favour of respondent and the learned Special District Judge while rejecting the revision petition of the petitioners has also not appreciated the lis involved in the matter in proper perspective. Mr. Sandhu would contend that from the very inception the agreement to sale was void as one of the signatory of agreement to sale that is the first petitioner was minor at that time but this vital aspect has not been taken care of by the SDO Raisinghnagar as well as by the learned Special District Judge and therefore both these orders are vitiated and are liable to be set at naught. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that both the impugned orders are void and therefore, cannot be sustained.