- (1.) BY way of this petition, the appellants of SAW No. 826/2011 seek review of the order dated 02.09.2011 whereby the said intra- court appeal was dismissed.
(2.) THE office has reported that this review petition is barred by limitation by 44 days. THE other defects regarding deficiency of court fees and about the frame of the petition have also been pointed out. So far the deficiency of court fees is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he shall be filing the requisite court fees during the course of the day. THE other defects, beingof formal nature, are taken note of and are ignored. So far the objection regarding limitation is concerned, it is noticed that this review petition is not accompanied by a certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed; and no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. The learned counsel Mr. Jain submits that he has applied for the requisite certified copy but has not been able to procure the same; and prays for some time for filing the certified copy and for moving an application for condonation of delay. However, we find no reason to keep this petition for review pending any further. It is noticed that the order in question was passed way back on 02.09.2011; this review petition was filed on 15.11.2011; and, on 29.03.2012, the Registrar (Administration) granted two week's time for removal of the defects. Then, on 04.05.2012, wegranted another weeks' time for the needful. There appears no reason to grantany further time in the matter; and we are not inclined to adjourn the matter essentially for the reason that we find absolutely no force in this petition for review. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that Shri Onkar Ram, non-petitioner No.8 herein, filed a writ petition (CWP No. 2721/1996) assailing a resolution dated 29.06.1996 as adopted by the Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh whereby certain pieces of land comprised in khasra Nos. 183 and 185 at village Jorkian were resolved to be allotted to the non-petitioners Nos. 4 to 7. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after thorough appreciation of the record, found the proceedings for alienation of the land in question suffering from fundamental violation of the Rules and even the directions as issued by the Government to be wholly without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition by the Jagdish & Ors. Vs. State (Collector), Hanumangarh & Ors. "In view of whatever discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the State Government dated 6.9.1994 (Annexure ? 2) is quashed to the extent, it orders for regularisation of possession of respondents No.4 to 7 upon the land bearing khasra No.183 and 185. The resolution No.8 dated 29.6.1996 taken by the Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh is also hereby declared void and, therefore, the same is quashed." Seeking to question the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, the present petitioners, while alleging that they were the bona fide purchasers from the allottees of the land in question, preferred an intra-court appeal (SAW No. 826/2011). A Division Bench of this Court of which, one of us (Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain-II, J.) was a Member, considered the matter in the order dated 02.09.2011 and dismissed the appeal, both on the point of locus of the appellants and so also on merits. The Court, however, left it open that the appellants could take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law to recover the amount of price, if any, paid by them to the allottees of the land in question. The Court, inter alia, observed as under:- "Even apart from this, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order which was passed on merits in relation to land in question. Admittedly it was found that allotments were made by the Sarpanch against the rules in favour of the respondents no. 4 to 7. They were, therefore, rightly challenged by the writ petitioner being against the provisions of law. The present appellants who claims to be purchaser of the land from the allottees' are none other than the close relation of the same Sarpanch who had made the allotments in favour of respondents no. 4 to 7. This fact clearly goes to show that appellants were not a bonafide purchaser of the land in question from the allottees. In any event when allottes were heard before cancellation of land by the authorities, and hence it cannot be complained that original allottees were not afforded any opportunity of being heard. Since the present appellants came to be subsequent transferee of the land in their favour through original allottees and there was no necessity of giving them any opportunity of being heard to them. More over, present appellants being in close relations with the said Sarpanch, they cannot claim that they are bonafide purchasers. It is a clear case where Sarpanch ws usurping his power of allotment of land arbitrarily in favour of his own persons. The authorities concerned were therefore right in cancelling the allotment. Accordingly and in the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is devoid of merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. Needless to observe the appellants may have a remedy to recover the price if paid by them to the allottees for acquiring the land in their favour. Since the allotment was held bad, and therefore, appellants have ow become entitled for refund of money which they may have paid originally for purchasing the land in question from the respondents no. 4 to 7. The appellants would be free to take recourse to any remedy to recovery the amount from the seller of land." The matter having been considered on facts as well as on law; and the order passed by the writ Court having been found justified and not calling for any interference particularly for it being a case of unlawful attempt at alienation of the Government land, we find nothing of an error apparent on the face of the record so as entertain this petition for review.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this review petition stands rejected.;