PURSHOTTARN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. Purshottam Singh and 160 other persons, whose particulars are given in the Schedule annexed to this order, have submitted identical writ petitions challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Rajasthan Canal Colony) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and for quashing the demand notices issued to the petitioners under the Rules and for ancillary reliefs.

(2.) AS all these writ petitions arise in similar circumstances and raise common questions, it would be proper to dispose them of by a common order.

(3.) THE first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. M. Lodha, is that the Rules were invalid, more particularly the challenge has been made in respect of Rules 6, 7 and 9. THE principal grounds on which the validity of these Rules have been challenged are two, namely; that the Rules were retrospective in nature and the delegated or subordinate legislative authority had no power to make retrospective legislation and that the Rules were inconsistent with the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the General Colony Conditions made thereunder. In respect of the first ground, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioner were allotted lands in the Rajasthan Canal Project area as Pong Dam oustees in the years 1966. 67 on the basis of the agreement arrived at on December 13, 1965 between the Chief Ministers of the concerned States, with the concurrence of the Central Government and that the petitioners should be charged price for the lands allotted to them in accordance with the aforesaid 1965 agreement, which prevailed at the time when the allotments were made in their favour and in that view of the matter, the provisions of Rules 6, 7 and 9 of the Rules, which were made in the year 1972 and provided for the payment of price by the allottees at an enhanced rate were invalid as the Rules wrer retrospectively made applicable to allotments made in the years 1966 and 1967, prior to the coming into force of the Rules. It is submitted that there is no provision in the Act authorising the State Government, which enjoyed merely the delegated power to make rules, to make retrospective legislation and that in the absence of such power, subordinate legislation could not be retrospective. Learned Additional Advocate General, Dr. Tewari, submitted that the Rules were not at all retrospective in nature and they could not be struck down as invalid on the alleged ground of retrospective operation thereof. His further contention is that the Rules operate only prospectively.