Hon'ble PALLI, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10/12/1991, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner has an alternative remedy and shall approach the S. D. O. to put up his grievance and the S. D. O. will pass appropriate orders after hearing him.
(2.) NORMALLY, such type of orders can hardly be interferred with in special appeal but having given our considerable thought to the matter and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case particularly the reading of the impugned order Annex. 16 has shaken our judicial conscience as to how the responsible officers of the State while discharging their functions as quasi judicial authorities through the executive fiat play havoc with the rights of a citizen vis-a-vis his property in flagrant abuse of the process of law, justice and procedure. So long as the authority does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or any rule or law the powers the authorities exercised are wide in amplitude and dimension. They, however, cannot be permitted to interfere with the rights of the citizens unless it can be pointed out that the authority has acted under some specific rule of law which authorises such an act. This is the essence of the rule of law as enshrined in our Constitution and on which the entire fabric of the democratic set up exists. It was not absolutely necessary to give the facts in detail in order to dispose of this appeal but as said above it has become almost necessary to give the brief facts in order to project as to how the S. D. O. (Revenue), Raisinghnagar, respondent No. 2 in this case came to hand down the impugned order in completely violating the principles of rule of law with carelessness and irresponsibility. The order further displays the callous disregard to the normal requirements of the rule of law in the society governed by the Constitution which guarantees to the citizens of this country against the arbitrary invasion of their rights by the executive. The action further exhibits and displays how the respondent No. 2 acted in depriving the appellant from peaceful enjoyment and possession of the valuable rights in the property in the present case, but for the timely intervention of this Court. Respondent No. 3 is a Pong Dam Oustee re-settled and rehabilitated with the allotment of 25 bighas of land in question in the District of Sri Ganganagar in the year 1973. The land is now in the command area of Indira Gandhi Canal. There is no dispute regarding the allotment as per Annex. l. Under the Rules, a tenant/ allottee cannot transfer the right, title and interest in the land so allotted except with the permission of the concerned Collector. The petitioner and his father in-law Karam Singh entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for the purchase of the said land on 5. 6. 1980 Annex. 2. The price settled was Rs. 53,000/- and it is stated that Rs. 43,000/- were received by the respondent No. 3 leaving a balance of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed, which was to be executed within a month from the requisite permission of the Collector. It is further stated that in sequence of this agreement and in part performance thereof ,the possession was delivered to the petitioner, a power of attorney is stated to have been executed in favour of one Fateh Singh for getting the sale- deed and other formalities done by him but the sale-deed for one reason or the other was hot executed and the respondent No. 3 Om Prakash went on delly dalling the matter in order to extract more money from the appellant. The appellant yielded and another agreement on 10/4/1987 was executed for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/- which has been placed as Annex. 4 on record. The appellant and his father in-law Karam Singh having been duped in the aforesaid manner as a precautionary resort got a will executed in their favour which is Annex. 5 on record. Respondent No. 3 still not satisfied went on realising mare and more money from the appellant by pressurising tactics and the endorsement of the amounts received by him were also made in black and white. Again a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is stated to have been paid and this time the writing was got scribed from the Patwari signed by the respondent No. 3 which is Annex. 6 on record. Inspite of the repeated requests from the side of the appellant the requisite consent from the Collector was not obtained and no efforts appear to have been made in that direction and in the mean-time the land prices reached rocket high and when the appellant learnt that the respondent is trying to negotiate a deal of the land in question they again approached the respondent No. 3 who now demanded Rs. 6,00,000/- as the price of the land because of the enormous increase in the value and ultimately the appellant succumbed to the pressure and an amount of Rs. 5. 90,000/- inclusive of the amounts already paid is said to have been received, leaving Rs. 10,000/- to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale-deed and this agreement third in the series is dated 13. 2. 1990 Annex. 7 on record and the appellant by way of abundant caution got this document attested from the Tehsildar in order to safe-guard his right, title and interest. It is further stated by the appellant in the petition that the recovery dues to the Irrigation Department were also paid by him vide Annexs. 8 to 11. Since the respondent No. 3 still continued raising unjust demand, the appellant apprehending trouble approached the Tehsildar on 1. 6. 1991 to verify the factum of his possession on which a report was called from the Patwari who after verifying and making an enquiry at the spot made a report on 2. 6. 1991 Annex. 12 on record. A further writing was obtained from the Irrigation Department which is Annex. 13 on record showing cultivation of the appellant. The notes made in Columns No. 28 to 35 in this document further reveal that the possession of the appellant was in sequence of an agreement to sell. The real trouble started on 27. 6. 1991 when the respondent No. 3 approached the respondent No. 2 S. D. O. (Revenue) Raisinghnagar who on that date was camping at Gharsana and the respondent made a representation to him making all types of wild allegations stating that the appellant was in illegal and unauthorised possession of his land and the appellant was basing his claim on some agreement to sell which is forged and which he never executed. This application is Annex. 14 on record. It would be quite interesting to reproduce here the relevant contents of the application: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... A perusal of the application at best makes out a case for security proceedings. The respondent No. 2 entertained this application and proceeded to record the statement of respondent No. 3 on 27. 6. 1991 and a certified copy of the statement is placed as Annex. 15 on record and the relevant part of the statement is reproduced hereunder: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...
(3.) AFTER recording the aforesaid statement, the respondent No. 2 immediately there and then without looking into any other document proceeded to pass the impunged order. Certified copy of which is Annex. 16 and without caring to call the appellant to show cause why such an order be not passed. The order is reproduced hereunder : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... A reading of Annex. 14 does not convey if any prayer for appointment of a Receiver was made. The application which would amount to an admission on the part of respondent No. 3 does not go beyond taking necessary action against the appellant and to make arrangements for security of the life of the respondent and interestingly in the application itself the land is stated to have been given by the respondent himself for the purpose of cultivation and while making the statement Annex. 15, the respondent No. 3 possibly forgot what he has actually stated in the application and gave a totally different account by saying that the land was given to the father in-law of Dalipsingh on share of produce and who had been giving to him such share and for preceding 3 years the land had been given to Dalipsingh on share of produce and he too has been giving to him his share and when he returned back from his village Dalipsingh told him that he has purchased the land and what right and title the respondent No. 3 has in the land in question and that there was an agreement which was alleged by the appellant, which is forged. It is further stated by him in the above said statement that Dalip Singh in connivance with the Patwari had got the entries changed from his name and agreement to sell is forged and that the possession be got delivered to him and police help be provided. The reading of the application and the statement even if accepted at its face value make out no case for appointment of a Receiver. The respondent himself admitted to have given the land in question as per his statement to Karam Singh and then to Dalip Singh for the purposes of cultivation on share of produce which again as per his own admission he has been receiving. It further comes to light on reading of these two documents that an agreement of sale is projected and in the given situation there was hardly any occasion for the respondent No. 2 to pass the impugned order. The appellant challenged this order by way of a writ petition to which a reply was filed by the respondent No. 3 of a complete denial and alleging that the agreements were forged and false. The averments regarding filing of application, statement and the impugned order were, however, admitted. A futile attempt also "appears to have been made in the return projecting as if the possession was with the respondent No. 3. Annex. R. 3/1 is the Khatoni, R. 3/2 is a copy of F. I. R and R. 3/3 is the Khasra Girdawri which are hardly relevant for the purposes of this petition since it is a conceded case from the side of the respondent No. 3 that he had himself put the appellant in possession of the land in question. ;