AMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition has prayed that the order of the Managing Officer dated 5 -12 -1973 as confirmed by the Central Government vide order dated 6 -10 -1978 (Ex. 4) may be quashed. Petitioner was allotted 37 bighas of agricultural land in 1950 bearing khasra No 42/2418/11, 44/11/4, 63/211 in Chak No. 39 P.S., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shri Ganganagar, as a non -claimant displaced person. This allotment was cancelled on 25 -5 -1964 for not paying instalment towards its price according to the terms and conditions. The land was allotted to one Shri Thakumal, Non -petitioner No. 3 by the Managing Officer. The above mentioned land was sold to petitioner for Rs. 7339.86 and he deposited Rs. 1045/ - in the year 1960 and Rs. 800/ - in 1961. But rest of the amount could not be deposited by him because of his family, circumstances. An application was made on 5 -6 -1968 explaining his difficulties and prayed for condoning the defaults. He again applied for the permission to deposit the whole of the balance amount. Petitioner submitted that without having any knowledge of the cancellation of the sale in his favour the same was allotted to non -petitioner No. 3. His application was rejected on 20th March, 1973 and he was advised by the Managing Officer Shri Gangaganagar to appeal to the Settlement Officer, Government of India, Department of Rehabilitation which was filed but the same was dismissed vide order 30 -4 -1975 (Ex. 2). Against this rejection of the appeal, the petitioner filed a revision before the Revenue Appellate Authority -cum -Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur. The same was also rejected. Aggrieved against this, petitioner has filed present writ petition.

(2.) THIS writ petition cannot survive for the simple reason that sale which was effected in favour of Thakumal, respondent No. 3 was not challenged by the petitioner. Since the allotment in favour of the respondent No. 3. Thakumal has been completed and the same has not been challenged. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by examining the validity of these orders challenged under psesent writ petition. Since the sale has been completed in favour of the respondent No. 3 Thakumal way back in the year 1964, as such, I don't find any merit in this writ petition and it is hereby dismissed.