YADAV, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition and other writ petitions have been filed seeking reliefs to quash the demand for the price of the lands allotted to them at four times rate of "reserve price" as contemplated in the notification dated 4. 6. 81 (Anx. 1) and further prayed to restrain the respondents from charging the said price fron them under the proviso to the said notificatons Anx. 1 to the writ petitions. Since in all these writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, hence these petitions are being decided o n merits by a common judgment treating S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 830 of 1994 as a leading case in which reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding these writ petitions are to be noticed that Baba Hardwari Nath Dharmarth Trust and Baba Mawasi Nath Dharmarth Trust were land-owners of agricultural lands situated in Gang Canal Area of Tehsil Sri Ganganagar. The lands in dispute have been acquired unde Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ` Act No. 11 of 1973') within the meaning of Section 16 of the said Act, which provides that the surplus lands held by the land- holders and shown in the final settlement shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and the same shall from the date of service of the final statement on a person, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all incumbrances. After coming into force of Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Per- manent Allotment and Sale) (Amendment) Rules, 1990 with effect from 26. 12. 1990, the persons in whose favour the allotment was made by order dated 11. 7. 1974 were advised to apply for allotment under the Gang Canal Permanent Allotment Rules. As the earlier allotment made by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of the order dated 11. 7. 74 was not found according to law, therefore, all these petitioners were directed to apply for fresh allotment under the Gang Canal Permanent Allotment Rules. It is also alleged in para 12 of the writ petition that the Sub-Divisional Officer made permanent allotment in favour of the petitioners at the reserve price, which was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,225/- and Rs. 875-per bigha in respect of the petitioners' lands, which are perennial and non-perennial irrigated lands respectively. It is also stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that all the lands which were formerly the Trusts lands including the lands allotted to the petitioners, are within the radius of 12 Kms. from the periphery of the city of Sri Ganganagar. After service of notices, the answering respondents have filed a detailed returen denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated in the reply by the answering- respondents that after coming into force the provision of ceiling under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, proceedings were initiated and accordingly, orders were passed with respect to two Trusts named- above by the Sub- Divisional Officer on 8. 12. 70. According to the answering-respondents, even after decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated. 8. 12. 70, the matter was re-opened by the Sub- Divisional Officer and he illegally and arbitrarily without any sanction of law passed the order dated 11. 7. 94 making certain allotments of the lands in dispute to the petitioners. However, when the matter came to the notice of the State Government with regard to the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 11. 7. 94, the same was processed and re-opened by the State Government under the non-obstinate Sec. 15 of Act No. 11 of 1973 by passing two orders dated 16. 8. 82 and 6. 9. 82, which are filed along with the reply and marked as Ex. R/1 and Ex. R/2 respectively. It is also stated in the reply to the writ petition that in terms of the aforesaid orders Ex. R/1 and Ex. R/2, the matter was referred to the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, which was ultimately dealt with in accordance with law.
(3.) THE answering-respondents have specifically stated in paragraph 5 of the reply that the State Government on 26. 12. 1990 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 28 read with Sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 amended the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1956. A cyclostyle copy of the said notification dated 26. 12. 90 is filed as Ex. R/3 to the reply. I have heard Mr. B. L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M. R. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the answering-respondents at length and critically gone through the material available on record. During the course of argument learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Mr. B. L. Purohit admitted that the lands in dispute have been allotted to all these petitioners under the Amended Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1990 vide notification dated 26. 12. 90 Ex. R/3 to the reply, issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 28 read with Sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act 1954. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very first time, these petitioners before this Court got entitlement for permanent allotment of the lands in dispute by virtue of notification dated 26. 12. 90 being in continuous cultivatory/ possession of the lands not exceeding 25 Bighas of irrigated lands or equivalent thereof at "reserve price" within the meaning of notification dated 4. 6. 81 Annx. 1 to the writ petition issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1956 in supersession of all the notifications issued in this behalf. The main thrust of argument of Mr. B. L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present set of circumstances, the proviso of the aforesaid notification dated 4. 6. 81 Annx. 1 to the writ petition cannot be pressed into service for creating demands by the answering-respondents for the lands allotted to these petitioners at four times the rate of reserve price. " ;