P. Sathasivam, J. - (1.) These appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 270 of 2002 and D.B. Cross Objection No. 1 of 2003 wherein the appeal filed by the Appellants herein was dismissed and the cross objection filed by the Respondents was allowed by the High Court.
(2.) Brief facts: (a) On 12.10.1941, Respondent No. 1 and his brother Pusa Ram (since expired)-his legal representatives are on record, were granted Bapi Patta No. 14 for agricultural land measuring about 603.16 bighas in Village Gevan, Tehsil Jodhpur by the then Jodhpur Government. As the land in question was part of the catchment area of the feeder canal of Kaliberi canal and stone slabs which were constructed by the Respondents were obstructing the flow of water, on 19.07.1942, at the request of the Public Health and Engineering Department (in short "the PHED"), Jodhpur Government cancelled the patta and removed the stone slabs. (b) On 05.09.1945, the Respondents claimed compensation of Rs. 37,826/- for the loss of their land and stone slabs. On 14.06.1949, the State Government made payment of Rs. 9,377/- as compensation to the Respondents. (c) Thereafter, in the year 1968, after a gap of about 20 years, the Respondents again claimed compensation of Rs. 73,885/- as price of the aforesaid land and stone slabs from the PHED through a notice. The PHED passed an order dated 23.04.1969 to restore the land in question to the Respondents in lieu of compensation amount sought for by them. In compliance of the said order, the possession of 460.15 Bighas of land was restored to them on 27.05.1969 and the same was also mutated in their name. (d) On some complaints being made, the restoration of the land was cancelled by the State Government on 01.05.1973. Challenging the same, the Respondents filed writ petition before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 24.11.1976, quashed the order dated 01.05.1973 and directed that in case the State wants to reopen the order dated 23.04.1969, it can do so by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners therein. After the aforesaid judgment, on 25.03.1978, a notice was served on the Respondents by the PHED stating that it wanted to get the land back from the Respondents which had been restored to them for its own use and order dated 23.04.1969 was sought to be recalled. It was also stated that the Respondents are liable to be evicted from the land in question. The Respondents filed objections against the notice for recalling the order dated 23.04.1969. (e) Since the notice for recalling the order dated 23.04.1969 has not been formally dropped, the Respondents filed a suit in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur. The Munsif Magistrate, by order dated 30.06.1982, decreed the suit restraining the State Government from making any alterations in the contract that has come into existence in pursuance of the order dated 23.04.1969. Notices were sent to the Respondents to appear before the Revenue Minister as the Revision Petition for cancellation of the plot granted in the year 1969 was pending before him. The parties appeared before the Revenue Minister. By order dated 15.12.1992, the Revenue Minister cancelled the order dated 23.04.1969. (f) Challenging the order of the Revenue Minister, the Respondents filed a petition being W.P. No. 1526 of 1993 before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 19.03.2002, allowed the same. (g) Against the said judgment, the State filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 270 of 2002 and the Respondents also filed cross objections before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 14.10.2003, dismissed the appeal filed by the State and allowed the cross objection filed by the Respondents herein. (h) Aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench, the State Government filed these appeals before this Court by way of special leave petitions.
(3.) Heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Dipankar Gupta, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1-6 and Ms. Bhati, learned Counsel for the intervenor.;