RAM VILAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case is that the State Government had allotted land measuring 30 acres of Khasra No. 218, 219 and 220 in Gudhi Rin Sait Area situate in Tehsil Pokaran to Champalal Somani on 5.1.1971 for 10 years on lease basis under Sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Saline Areas Allotment) Rules, 1970 and he held the power of attorney of Shri Somani. The lease was renewed on 21.1.1982 vide Annx. 9 for another to years. After some time Champalal Somani, original allottee, decided to transfer the land allotted to him to the petitioner in lieu of consideration for Rs. 10,000.00 and hence he requested the respondents to transfer the lease in his name. It is stated that the petitioner him self was in possession of the lease land since 30.3.73 and was manufacturing sail. On the request of the transfer the respondents desired that the consent of the original allottee be sent and therefore the petitioner sent the consent obtained from Shri Somani yet the respondents did not transfer the lease in his name. On the contrary the respondents, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, terminated the lease vide Annx. 1 dated 2.5.1991. It is averred that at no point of time the respondents refused the petitioner's request to transfer the lease in favour of the petitioner and as he remained under the belief that lease would be transferred in his name, so he spent about one lakh Rupees in the development of the area. It is prayed that the order Annx. 1 and the consequential order Annex. 2 be quashed and, the respondents be directed to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) In the return, it was admitted that lease was granted in favour of Champalal in 1971 and that it was renewed vide Annex. 9 on 21.1.1982 for 10 years. It is averred that the respondents wrote letters to the original allottee for the renewal of his lease deed in 1982 but he did not respond and there was no occasion to give notice to the petitioner as he was not the allottee. It is further averred that Champalal, the original allottee, informed the respondents vide letter dated 26.7.1983 Ex.R-2 that he had cancelled the power of attorney made in favour of the petitioner, it is further the case of the respondents that any transaction entered into between the original allottee and the petitioner was not binding on the respondents as the sale was not made with the prior permission of the respondents. Regarding the letters written to the petitioner about submitting the consent of the original allottee, it is stated that 6uch letters were written contrary to the rules and therefore the letters are null and void and are to be Ignored.

(3.) In the rejoinder the facts of the writ petition have been reiterated and it is stated that the petitioner had filed power of attorney for the renewal of the lease in 1981 but the respondents insisted that it should be signed by original allottee, though at that point of time the petitioner had valid subsisting power of attorney.