MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by Maniram and Hajari Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or restraining the respondents from causing any interference with the cultivatory possession of the petitioners over squares Nos. 240 and 241 situated in village Thakri Tehsil Raisinghnagar and from dispossessing there from, and for causing the allotment of this land, if any, made in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The writ petition arises out of the following facts _ and circumstances: The petitioners were temporary tenants of 42 Bighas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 240 and 241 of village Thakri since year 1951. They applied for permanent allotment of this land in the year 1959. Their application for permanent allotment was allowed in October, 1961 and the petitioners were directed to pay the price of the land in instalments. The petitioners paid the first instalment vide receipt Ex 1 and thereafter paid she second and third instalments on 2 -7 -1974 vide Ex.2 The rest of the instalments payable with respect to the lard upto the year 1977 were also paid by the petitioners vide receipt dated 19th July, 1977 marked Ex.3 As the instalments were not paid in time the Revenue Authorities charged interest from the petitioners which they paid vide receipt dated 19 -7 -1977. In this manner the petitioners became permanent allottees of the Barani land in question. Thereafter the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar informed the petitioners at village Thakri that he would assist them in getting irrigated land in exchange for their Barani land and advised them to meet him at Raisinghnagar The petitioners appeared before the Assisant Collector Raisinghnagar in his office and applied for exchange of the lands at his instance, but later on the petitioners were neither informed as to what orders were passed on their application for exchange of lands nor were they given possession of irrigated lands in exchange of their Barani land. About a week prior to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners were polishing their Barani land. Then Aduram son of Begaram Harijan resident of 11 TK came to the petitioners and asked them not to plough square No. 241 because it has been allotted to him by the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar. He also objected to the ploughing of square No. 240 also on the ground that the same has been allotted to one Mst. Surjeet Kaur wife of Jagirasingh Jat Sikh resident of village 11 TK. The petitioners, however, informed Aduram that the aforesaid two squares have been permanently allotted to them in the year 1971 and they have paid their price also. On the next day i.e. on or about 17th of August, 1978, Begaram again came to the petitioners along with the Police Constables and asked them not to cultivate squares Nos. 240 and 241. The Police Constables told the petitioners that they would arrest the latter if the possession of the land in question was not given to Begaram. Hajari petitioner No. 2 thereupon appeared before the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar and requested him that he and Maniram should not be deprived of their right to cultivate the land in question but the Assistant Collector directed them to handover the possession of the land to Begaram and Surjeet Kaur as the land has been allotted to them on temporary basis. Hajari thereupon applied for obtaining copies of the order of allotment passed in favour of Aduram and Mst. Surjeet Kaur but his application was not accepted by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners later on came to know that Aduram is the son of Begaram M P. and the land has been allotted to him in Antodya programme by the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar to please his father. The petitioner's contention, therefore, is that as they were permanent allottees of the disputed land, the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to allot their lands on temporary basis in the Antodya programme to Aduram and Mst. Surjeet Kaur Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively without even giving a show cause notice to the petitioners. It was further urged that; the respondents have no right to dispossess the petitioners from their land otherwise than in due process of law.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted by this Court and notices were sent to Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 A written reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Government Advocate wherein it was stated that the petitioners were permanent allottees of the land in question but they surrendered the land to the Government and. therefore they ceased to be the allottees. It was denied that the Assistant Collector ever promised to the petitioners that he would assist them in getting irrigated land in exchange of their Barani land. According to Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the petitioners themselves wanted irrigated land in the colony. Therefore, they suo moto voluntarily surrendered their land vide deed of surrender Ex P 1 and so the land after it was surrendered by the petitioners was allotted to Aduram Harijan and Mst. Surjeet Kaur vide orders dated 13 -2 -1978 marked Ex P 2 and Ex P 5. It was further denied that the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute and that Aduram is the son of Begaram M.P and that the land was allotted to Aduram in order to please Begaram M.P. On behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 some additional pleas also were taken which are as follows: (1) The petitioners have voluntarily surrendered the land which vested in the State from the date of surrender and. r,o light, interest or title in the land subsists in favour of the petitioners. (2) The petitioners are not entitled to object to the allotment of the land in question to Aduram and Surjeetkaur because their rights in the land came to an end on the date when the land was surrendered to the State, The petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the orders of allotment of this land to Begaram and Sujeet Kaur and their appeal was decided by the appellate authority vide their judgment dated 30 -11 -1978. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioners in their writ petition and so they are not entitled to any relief from this Court. (3) The petitioners are in possession of 20 Bighas of Nahari land their possession as is evident from the order of the allotting authorities Ex 9 dated 22 -10 -1977 and so they are not entitled to get more land. The petitioners filed appeals against the order dated 22 -10 -1977 in the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority which was decided by the letter on 30 -11 -1977. This fact also has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioners for reasons best known so them and so on account of suppression of material facts they are disentitled to get any relief from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record of the writ petition and heard Mr. B L Purohit learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. H M Lodha, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. M D. Purohit Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.