JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON -petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 and Smt. Rajo were allotted agricultural land Sq. No. 37 in chak No. 5B, Tehsil Sriganganagar, by the Managing Officer, Sriganganagar. All the aforesaid three allottees entered into an agreement to sell the land and delivered possession to the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 13,000/. Out of this amount, Rs. 6500/ -were paid by way of loans and another sum of Rs. 1500/ - was paid later in the year 1961. The allottees instituted a suit against the petitioners and their father for possession of the land. This suit was, however, dismissed by the Assistant Collector, by his judgment dated January 5, 1966. The dismissal of the suit became final as no appeal was preferred against the judgment dated January 5, 1966 The petitioners father had a verified claim in respect of certain property which he left in Pakistan from where he migrated to India in the wake of partition. The petitioners, father got his claim associated with that of respondent No. 3 and this association wag allowed vide memorandum Anx 1 dated March 26, 1966. This is borne out from the copy of the order dated March 9, 1976 of the Managing Officer cum Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Sriganganagar. Smt. Rajo, widow of Kaluram and her minor son Natbu (Nos. petitioner No. 4) filed another revenue suit No. 68 of 1968 in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Sriganganagar which was also dismissed on May 10, 1971 vide judgment Anx 3. After the death of Smt Rajo, the remaining two allottees executed a sale deed Anx 4 dated January 30, 1974 in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners. It is said that on behalf of the State, a suit was instituted in the court of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Sriganganagar under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 This suit was also dismissed on April 21, 1976 by judgment Anx. 5. It appears that proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC were initiated in regard to this land and the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sriganganagar, by his order Anx. 6 dated December 7, 1977 declared the possession of the petitioners on the land in question as valid No order could be pasted in regard to the ownership of the land. It was also incorporated in the order that the parties may get their rights established by a competent civil court. After passing of the order Anx. 6 dated December 7, 1977, respondent No. 2 (Collector, Sriganganagar) passed an order Anx. 7 dated February 12,1978 The petitioners' case is that on the date of the filing of the writ petition, that is, March 20, 1978, their crops of wheat, mustard, gram etc. were standing on 15 bighas of this land and that 10 bighas of the land were lying vacant. The petitioners have challenged the order Anx.7 in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. They have prayed that the order Anx.7 dated February 12, 1978 may be quashed and the Collector may be restrained from giving effect to the same Non -petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have filed reply to the writ petition contesting it on February 17, 1979. On behalf of non -petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, a separate reply was filed on September 17,1979. Non -petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that the order Anx. 7 is valid Non petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 have, inter alia, stated that no agreement as alleged by the petitioners could be made as it is contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was also stated by non -petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioners were dispossessed from the land in dispute on March 2, 1978, that is, before the filing of the writ petition. It was further contended that in the nature of things, no notice was necessary to the petitioners as they had committed an offence under the Penal Code for which proceedings were already pending against them and as the petitioners have concealed this fact, they have not come with clean hands and that in this view the petitioners do not deserve any relief under Article 226.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties,

(3.) LEARNED Deputy Government Advocate as well as Mr. B.R. Arora, learned Counsel for non -petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 urged that it Is true that order Anx. 7 was passed without hearing the petitioners but in view of the fact that when non -petitioner No. 2 was apprised of the correct facts, who was authorised to work on behalf of the Settlement Commissioner, he ordered that the petitioners should be dispossessed. It was also submitted that the petitioners being guilty of suppression and suggestio falsi, cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection, reliance was placed on Radhey Shyam v. Vijay Singh 1972 WLN 772, Brimco Bricks v. State of Rajasthan 1972 RLW 76, Samnathmal v. Jugaldas 1973 WLN 813 and Omprakash v. State of Rajasthan 1977 RLW 470.