GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed in this petition that Rule 17(3) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 was not retrospective in nature, therefore, the State Government has no power to implement it from 1-11-1988, the date on which the Rules came into force. It is also prayed that notice at Annx. 3 be quashed and set aside and the State Government be directed to issue Sanad Khatedari rights to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was allotted land by an order dated 26-5-76 (Annex. 2) on certain terms and conditions. Thereafter, the Government issued notification at Annex. 1 dated 27-10-88 amending Rule 17(3) of the Rules. In pursuance to that, the notice Annex. 3 came to be issued on 12-7-91 which is challenged in this petition.

(3.) Only one submission was raised by learned Counsel Shri Jain that notification was not in nature of retrospective, therefore, the impugned notice at Annex. 3 issued by the Tehsildar calling upon the petitioner to pay approximate interest amount of Rs. 6,300.00 at the new rate on the basis of amendment is illegal. He submitted that terms and ; conditions of allotment cannot be unilaterally changed by the Government. In support of his 1 submission, he relied upon two Supreme Courts judgments viz., P. Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 : (AIR 1990 SC 405) and Shree Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills, New Contractors Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 1471. First case is arising out of service matter. It has nothing to do with the submission made by Mr. Jain in this case. Second case is regarding price control order. Similarly, it has also no 8 application to the present case. It is always; open to the Government to amend the rule. Under the amended rules, the Government was entitled to charge the interest. Accordingly, notice at Annex. 3 was issued do not find anything wrong with it. There is no substance in the submission made by the petitioner that the amendment was not retrospective and it was prospective.