MILAP CHANDRA. JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated August 26, 1991 (Annex. 14) by which the revision of the respondent No. 5 Dhanna Ram has been allowed and allotment order dated June 13, 1989 and Patta dated July 12, 1989 issued in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chattargarh (respondent No. 4) have been quashed.
(2.) THE facts of the case may be summarised thus. On March 15, 1989, the petitioner Avtar Singh filed an application for allotment of 4 bighas of "johar Paytan land" comprising of Kilas No. 3, 4, 7 and 8 in Murabba No. 72/50 situated in Chak 4-KND as a small patch under Rule 14, Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Project Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules' ). THE Assistant Colonisation, Commissioner, I. G. C. P. , Chattargarh (respondent No. 4) directed the petitioner to deposit the price of 4 bighas of land as per rules. By his order dated June 13, 1989, the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner allotted four bighas of 'johar Paytan Land' to the petitioner, observing that none has applied for its allotment and the petitioner's land is situated near it, Its possession was handed over on July 13, 1989 by the Patwari to the petitioner. On August 22, 1989, the respondent No. 5 Dhanna Ram filed an appeal against the said allotment alleging that his land is adjacent to the disputed land and his father had earlier applied for its allotment but it was refused by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner. It was further alleged that the allottee Avtar Singh had no land in Murabba No. 72/50 and as such it could not be allotted to him as a small patch of land and the allotment made in his favour without giving opportunity of hearing to him was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the law. THE Additional Colonisation Commissioner dismissed the appeal. A revision was filed by the respondents No. 5 Dhanna Ram before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. THE learned Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, held that prior to the amendment in Rule 14 (1) of the Rules by the Notification dated September 22, 1988, published in Rajasthan Gazette Part IV (Ga) (ii) page 46 dated July 13, 1989, allotment of small patch of government land could only be made in favour of a tenure tenant of the adjoining land and after the insertion of proviso to rule 14 (1) of the Rules by the said amendment small patch of land can now be allotted to tenure tenants of the same Chak or of the adjoining Chak also if the tenant of the adjoining land fails to apply for its allotment. He further held that as the said amendment did not come in force on the date of allotment made in favour of the petitioner Avtar Singh and accordingly, its allotment in his favour was quashed and the revision was allowed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Notification dated September 22, 1988 amending Rules came into force the same day and it is not correct that it came into force on July 13, 1989 the day on which it was published in the Rajasthan Gazette. He relied upon Sections 5 and 25, Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 and Atma Ram Vs. Madan Lal Rathi (l)and Girjashanker Vs. Lalu He further contended that under the amended Rule 14 of the Rules, allotment of the disputed land could be made and as such the learned Member, Revenue Board, Ajmer was not at all justified to quash the allotment order and the patta granted in pursuance thereof. In reply, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and the learned Government Advocate that under the unamended Rule 14 of the Rules allotment of the disputed land could not be made in favour of the petitioner as admittedly his land did not adjoin the disputed strip of land. They further contended that Notification dated September 22, 1988 amending Rule 14 of the Rules by insertion of a proviso came into force on its publication in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July, 13, 1989 and not prior to it and the learned Member has rightly held so. They further contended that Sections 5 and 25, Rajasthan General Clauses Act are not applicable in this case and Atma Ram Vs. Madan Lal Rathi, and Girjashankar Vs. Lalu, (supra) relate to enactment & Ordinance and not to notifications. They relied upon Harlal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra ). The relevant portions of the notification No. F. 4 (9) Re/col/87 Pt. dated September 22, 1988 issued by the Revenue (Colonisation) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur run as under : "in exercise of the powers conferred by section 28 read with section 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954- (Rajasthan Act No. XXVII of 1954), the State Government hereby makes the following amendments in the ;rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975, namely; (8) In rule 14 (1), the following new proviso shall be added, namely, "provided that if the tenant of the adjoining land fails to apply for the allotment of small patch, the Allotting Authority shall make arrangement for making allotment of such small patch to the tenure tenants of the same chak or of the adjoining chak". (9) Sub-rule (2) of rule 14 shall be substituted by the following, namely:- "in case more than one tenants apply for allotment of same small patch, allotment shall be made by auction and it shall be allotted to the highest bidder". If this notification is held to be operative from September 22, 1988 (the date of its issuance), the allotment dated June 13, 1989 of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner is saved. If it is held that the said notification came into force w. e. f. July 13, 1989 (the date of its publication in the gazette) and not w. e. f. September 22, 1988, the said allotment could not be made under the existing Rule 14 of the Rules. Thus the only question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the said notification adding the said proviso to Rule 14 (1) of the Rules came into force w. e. f. September 22, 1988 or July 13, 1989. Admittedly, it is not mentioned in this notification that it would corns into force with immediate effect or it will come in to force w. e. f. some other date. It is stated in the said notification that it has been issued under sec. 28 read with sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), Sec. 28 of the Act provides that the State Government may, by notification in official gazette, make Rules generally for carrying into force the provisions and purposes of this Act and in particular for all matters which are required by the Act to be prescribed or which may be prescribed thereunder. It is thus clear that Rules may be made by notification in the official gazette. Admittedly, the notification amending the Rules was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July, 13, 1989. Thus the amendments in the Rules were effective from the date the same were published in the Rajasthan Gazette and not earlier. Atma Ram Vs. Madanlal Rathi (supra), and Girjashanker Vs. Lalu (supra), deal with Act and Ordinance and not with notifications. It has been observed in Harlal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), as follows: "the principle underlying this question has been judicially considered in England. For example, on a somewhat lower plane, it was held in Johnson v. Sargant, (1918) 1 K. B. 101 : 87 L. J. K. B. 122 that an order of the Food Controller under the Beans Peas and Pulse (Requisition) Order, 1917 does not become operative until it is made known to the public, and the difference between an order of that kind and an Act of the British Parliament is stressed. The differences is obvious. Acts of the British Parliament are publicly enacted. The debates are open to the public and the Acts are passed by the accredited representatives of the people who in the rory can be trusted to see that their constituents know what has been done. They also receive wide publicity in papers and, now, over the wireless. Not so Royal Proclamations and Orders of a Food Controller and so forth There must therefore be promulgation and publication in their cases. The mode of publication can vary, what is a good method in one country may not necessarily be the best in another. But reasonable publication of some sort there must be. " Similarly, Section 5, Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 deals with the Act and Ordinance and not with notification. Sec. 25, Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 is of no help to the petitioner. It simply provides that where, in any Rajasthan law, or in any rule, regulation or bye-law made thereunder, it is directed that any rule, regulation, bye-laws, notification, order, scheme, form or other matter, shall be notified or published, then such notification or publication shall, unless such law, rule, regulation or bye-law otherwise provides, be deemed to be duly made if it is published in the Rajasthan Gazette. Section 28 of the Act clearly provides that the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, make rules. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, has rightly held that the amendment in Rule 14 of the Rules came into force w. e. f. July 13, 1989 (the date on which the notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette) and not w. e. f. September 22, 1988 (the date on which the notification was issued ). The Board of Revenue rightly quashed the allotment order dated June 13, 1989 and patta dated July 12, 1989 and rightly directed the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner to make de novo inquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules and pass necessary order for allotment of the disputed small patch of Government land in accordance with law after giving notice to the respondent No. 5 Dhanna Ram. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. . ;