RAWAT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Legislature of Rajas-than has passed the Rajasthan Land Development corporation Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act' ). The object for which the Act has been passed is to constitute a Corporation for the execution of projects relating to land development with a view to preventing damage to land and loss in agricultural productivity and to securing optimum utilisation of land and water resources in the State of Rajasthan and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

(2.) SECTION 2 (e) defines 'competent authority' to mean any authority empowered under the relevant law to require execution of works by land holders or to execute or get the works executed. The 'relevant law' is defined in section 2 (p) to mean the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act and certain other Acts relating to land development for the time being in force in the State of Rajasthan. Section 2 (j) defines 'land development' to mean amongst others construction, renovation, re-designing, re-aligning and lining of water courses 'project' is defined in Section 2 (n) to mean any project of or scheme for land development sanctioned under Section 20. Section 20 empowers the State government to sanction any project specifying the areas entrusted to the corporation and the works to be executed by the corporation in such area Subsection (2) further lays down that the corporation shall in collaboration with the prescribed agency be the sole authority for execution of works in the areas entrusted to the corporation under Sub-section (1) except in cases where land holders execute works in their respective land holdings within the period and in the manner specified by the competent authority. Section 24 provides that for the purpose of execution of the works every land holder other than those who execute the works in their respective land holdings within the period and in the manner specified by the competent authority shall pay to the corporation the proportionate cost of works on the issue of a notice to him by the corporation. Sub-section (4) provides that any dispute relating to a notice shall be adjudicated in an inquiry to be held by the Collector. Section 26 provides for a loan to be taken by the land holder from a bank or a financing institution for an ordinary loan for meeting the proportionate cost of works and Sub-section (2)provides that the the amount of ordinary loan if sanctioned to the land holder shall be paid to the Corporation by the bank or the financing institution concerned on account of and on behalf of the land holder towards the proportionate cost of Works payable by him to the corporation. Section 27 provides that if the land holder is unable to raise an ordinary loan the corporation may grant to such land holder a special loan. Section 30 provides for a penalty of stoppage of water supply to the land holders who fail to provide funds to the corporation within the period allowed to them for meeting proportionate cost of works. Sub-section (3) of Section 30 provides for an inquiry to be made by the Collector whether the requisition made under Subsection (1) was proper or not.

(3.) IN exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act the State Government sanctioned a number of projects to be executed by the rajasthan Land Development Corporation (hereinafter to be called the 'corporation') in the areas mentioned therein. A copy of the notification dated 30-5-1975 filed along with the reply by respondent 2 Ex. Rule 2 shows at item 57 Sardarpura Distributory SPD-20. After the project is sanctioned the corporation prepares a scheme of the land development so as to undertake a scheme on behalf of the land holders. The proportionate cost of work is to be borne by the land holder. For that purpose the amount of loan is to be raised from the bank or the financing institution by the land holders with the assistance of the Corporation. The practice followed by the respondent 2 is that after the project has been sanctioned the colonisation authorities who are entrusted with the job of collecting loan applications on behalf of the corporation visit the Chak along with the Chak Plan and cost estimate with a view to explaining to the farmers the manner in which the proposed works are to be carried out and the benefits accruing to them. It is stated in reply that in pursuance of this the authorities went to the village and after explaining the scheme loan applications were got signed from a number of land holders including the petitioner. A copy of the loan application dated 21-11-75 signed by the petitioner is on record. By this application the petitioner has asked for a loan of Rs. 10,017/- from the Bank of Rajasthan and has also authorised the bank that on sanction of the loan, the said amount may be given to the officers of the Corporation who are to execute the work on his behalf. The Corporation has prepared an estimate work in the Chak of the petitioner with which we are concerned which is of watercourse lining and has worked out the costs and estimates which comes to about Rs. 2,37,170. According to the loan policy and procedure prescribed by the Corporation, the corporation is expected to give a green signal to the command area authorities for commencing the work in the chak as soon as it is advised by the Regional Manager, that on the basis of the loan applications received about 80% of the cost of works is likely to be, made available by way of commercial credit. The financial sanction in respect of this chak was accorded by the Corporation on 12-2-76. Bank of Rajasthan had conveyed the sanction of loan applied for on 17-2-76, and the executing agency commenced the work in this Chak on 19-2-76. As the Bank is advancing the loan evidently the bank insists on getting the land of the loanee mortgaged. The corporation having asked the petitioner to execute the mortgage the petitioner refused to do so. Evidently this created a situation in which the work which had been started on the basis of the assurance from the petitioner given by him in his loan application was in danger of being starved of funds because of the refusal of the petitioner to execute the mortgage documents. It was thereupon that the respondent 2 Corporation invoked to its aid Section 24 of Act and gave notice to the petitioner a notice asking him to pay Rs. 10,017/ -. Another notice also was issued to him demanding Rs. 2328/-, Thereafter the petitioner filed this petition in this Court with the allegation that the impugned notices were un-warranted and that he was also apprehending that he may be proceeded with under Section 30 of the Act by stoppage of water and asking for quashing of these notices.