VIJAYPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners, who are not the original allottee of the land in question have filed this petition and challenged the impugned order dated 20-8-1998 (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned Special Judge (III), Pong Dam Oustees, Sriganganagar, whereby, the allotment made in favour of original allottee deceased Roshan Lal on 16-7-1972 has been declared as cancelled in view of the breach of conditions committed by the deceased allottee Roshan Lal and the land in question has been vested within the State Government.

(2.) Learned counsel Shri Sidhu for the petitioner vehemently challenged the impugned order (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned Special Judge on the ground that there was no breach of conditions of Rules, 1972 as the land in question was legally transferred by the original allottee deceased Roshan Lal in favour of present petitioners by way of will. He further submits that as per the will dated 5-5-1989 the mutation entry (Annexure P/2) was also made in the name of petitioners on 31-12-1991. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

(3.) In case of Gurdeep Singh v. Special Judge, Pong Dam Oustees Matters, Sriganganagar reported in 1998 (3) WLC 607 : (1998 AIHC 4678), the learned single Judge of this Court has clearly held that, "the petitioner, who is transferee, from the oustee allottee did not get any rights whatsoever by such transfer because of the terms of allotment and, as such, void. The possession of the petitioner on the land is nothing more than that of a trespasser." This Court has clearly held that except the original oustee allottee no one else has right to challenge the impugned order of cancellation of allotment of land passed by learned Special Judge. However, learned counsel Shri Sidhu tried to distinguish that judgment on the ground that there is no breach of Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 1972. He submitted that the transfer of land was wholly in accordance with the law as the same was transferred in the name of petitioners by the original allottee by way of "will" and in pursuance of that will the mutation entry was also made in the name of the petitioner in 1991. Rule 6(4) reads as under :-