NANDLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tell-tale of woo and sufferings due to protracted litigation of an alleged freedom fighter Tamrapatra holder, who claims to have suffered for about five decades in the freedom movement has ultimately terminated in this review petition and application during the hearing of that review petition. The order dt. 3-6-69 was the first and this present order should hopefully be last but one if not last in this series of avoidable litigation. It is desired that Revenue Commissioner of the State of Rajasthan should personally ensure the implementation of the Government order dt 3-6-69 as interpreted by this Court in writ petition, first heard by me in Single Bench and then confirmed by the Division Bench consisting of Shri K. D. Sharma, the then Chief Justice and Shri S. N. Bhargava J., in special appeal, and which was later on confirmed by the Supreme Court by rejecting the State appeal.

(2.) The misfortune is that while hearing in Single Bench, the State did not provide the requisite assistance and again, when the present direction for hearing the review was issued by the Supreme Court, the State Counsel remained conspicuously absent, in Supreme Court and on 20-9-85 here. The tiny question which should not require more than five minutes the attention of the Revenue Commissioner if he chooses to go to spot and apply his mind or even otherwise, is whether 50 bighas of land proposed to be given to Shri Nandlal Sharma is cultivable where the agricultural produce can be sown and harvested and if any part of it on account of road or nala or the land being uncultivable due to its inherent inferior quality is found then to provide alternative land as a whole or additional for compensating it.

(3.) What a pity it is that for solving this small problem, Shri Nandlal Sharma at the age of 75 years has been compelled to enter into series of litigations and representations, writ petition, contempt petition and review petition. Irrespective of the judgment or order which I propose to give hereunder, I would like to place my desire on the record not in the form of the direction but as a piece of advice to enhance social justice that even now without waiting for the outcome of this litigation, the Revenue Commissioner should devote a few minutes to solve the above problem and put big full-stop to this avoidable litigation.