PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 7 writ petitions have been taken up today for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. As common questions of law and fact are raised in these writ petitions, it would be convenient to decide them by a common order.

(2.) THE case of all the petitioners is that each one of them had applied for conversion of agricultural land under his tenancy and possession and situated within district of Bhilwara, into land meant lot residential or commercial purposes in urban area, in accordance with the provision of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan (Allotment and Conversion of Agricultural Land for Residential or Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Collector, Bhilwara, after consulting the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, passed an order on 21 -6 -74 allowing the requisite conversion article regularization for the use of agricultural land for construction of residential houses by granting leases for a period of 99 years on payment of premium urban assessment etc as directed by him in his aforesaid order. In pursuance of the said order of the Collector Bhilwara, leases were duly executed by each one of the petitioners and State of Rajasthan and lease agreements were duly registered some time in the year 1974.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that thereafter the Collector Bhilwara has given notice to the petitioners directing them to appear before the Revenue Minister for a suo moto review of the earlier order passed on September 12, 1977. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no provision for such a review under the Rules and as such the proceedings for suo moto review initiated by the Revenue Minister are without jurisdiction. Leaned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules in defending the proceedings for a suo moto review by the State Government and urged that the provisions of Rule 14 have over riding effect and vest the power of review in the State Government and because the earlier order passed by the then Revenue Munster dated September 12, 1977 was an order dismissing the application of Chandmal Soni in default of application, as such it was not a final adjudication of the matter in dispute and on the aforesaid basis the proceedings for suo moto review are sought to be supported on behalf of the State Government.