JESARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule annexed with this order raise common questions, so, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) I may state a few relevant facts in the petition of Jesaram mentioned above.

(3.) REPLY to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioner was Bhakra landless persons within the meaning of the term defined in the repealed rules for allotment of the land, which were in force in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area previously and also under sub -clause (V) or Rule (1) of the 1975 Rules. His application for permanent allotment of agricultural land came to be transferred in the Colonization Department Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner along with the application of the persons alike him in the year 1960. Thereafter, such persons were allotted 50 Bighas of command land in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area. The petitioner's case was regularised under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Raj. Canal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1967 (for short '1967 Rules') which were repealed by the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment of Government Land to Post -1955 Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders and other landless persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1971. The Rules of 1971 were struck down by the Supreme Court on May, 1975 in Jaila Singh's case AIR 1975 SC 1436. Thereafter, the State Government framed the 1975 Rules. In pursuance of the directions given by the Supreme Court, Rule 5 of the 1975 Rules made a provision for eligibility and extent of allotment. According to which the Bhakra landless persons were also eligible for getting allotment upto 25 Bighas of land. It was further stated that Bhakra landless persons to whom the land could not be allotted in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area prior to the Rules of 1967 and 1971 got allotment of the land upto 25 Bighas under the Rules of 1975. However, the terms and conditions of allotment of those Bhakra landless persons, who had got allotment before the rules of 1967 came into force and their cases, as a separate class were pending before the Government for determination of the terms and conditions as per stipulation contained in the allotment order. The Government, therefore, issued an order No. F. 4(20) Rev./Col./82 dated 18/20 -2 -84 to the Commissions Colonization, Bikaner for getting reviewed the land allotment cases of such Bhakra landless persons and the terms and conditions were laid down therein. This order was within the competence of the Government not only under 1975 Rules but also under the conditions contained in the allotment order (Annx. 1). Therefore, the notice (Annx. 2) issued by the respondent No. 2 in pursuance's the Government Order is legal. It was also stated that the Bhakra landless person is not entitled to more than 25 Bighas of the common land under the Rules of 1975. But as the petitioner and the persons, alike him were previously allotted 50 Bighas each provisionally, the Government vide its aforesaid order, decided to regularise/allot them entire land on special conditions by treating them as a separate class and directed to pay the current reserved price of 25 Bighas and four times of the reserved price for the rest of the ceiling limit. In fact, the petitioner is not entitled to more than 25 Bighas of land but under its special power, the Government decided to allot the entire land on special rates. The petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment and it is now not open to him to challenge the same, which has been prescribed by the Government under the order (Ex. R/1). The allotment was not made to the petitioner on permanent basis. It was just a provisional allotment but of permanent nature subject to the stipulation contained in the allotment order. It was stated that the petitioner cannot be considered as a temporary cultivation allottee. The term 'Temporary Cultivation Lease -holder' is defined in Rule 2(1)(xvii) of the Rules of 1975. The allotment of surplus land to the adult member of the family is covered Under Section 13(5)(b). The petitioner's case is not similar to the case of a temporary lease -holder. No khatedari rights have been vested in the petitioner until the entire payment is made by him. The dues have been determined only recently by the State Government. The respondents, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.