M.L. Jain, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions No. 1745/76 and 1746/76 are being disposed of by this one order. The petitioners claim to be ex -Jagirdar of Jagir Chilkoi of Taranagar Tehsil. District Churu. Sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, provided that land out of the categories mentioned in that section, may, if available, be allotted (to a Jagirdar) as khudkasht under chapter IV of the said Act. Clause (vi) of sub -section (1) of Sec. 19 specifies one of the categories of land as follows: "(vi) Land commanded by the Bhakra or the Chambal Project or by the Jawai Band or by any other irrigation project provided that the allotment of such land as khudkasht shall be on such concessional terms and conditions as may be prescribed." In pursuance of this provision, the Rajasthan Government framed the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Concession for Khudkasht on Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules. 1963, which were published in the Gazette on 4 -4 -1963. These rules provided that an application for allotment under these rules shall be made in Form 3 and submitted to the Commissioner for Khudkasht land through the Tehsildar of the tehsil in which the applicant's jagir was situated. The Commissioner for Khudkasht was then required to send to the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, a list in form, A of all the persons selected by him for allotment of land in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area. The list was required to be arranged in order of priority according to the date of the application. The Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, was to arrange the available lands in a particular area that may be reserved by the Government for allotment of khudkasht land in such order of priority as may be necessary in view of the class of soil, facilities of irrigation, and other convenience determined according to the local condition and make allotment of land to the applicants for khudkasht. It appears that rule 7 as it stood prior to its amendment provided that each Jagirdar shall be allotted two squares out of which full price of land shall be charged for one square and only betterment levy for the other square. The petitioners appear to have applied for allotment of land under the aforesaid rule. The Khudkasht Commissioner by his letter dated 16 -12 -1965. wrote to the Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner, that one of the each petitioner may be allotted one square (25 Bighas of land) in the Rajasthan Canal Area out of the land reserved for this purpose by the Govt. by its order dated 1 -1 -1964. The Rule 7 was amended in 29th June 1967 but the notification thereof was published in the Gazette on 21 -9 -67 By this amendment it was provided that each Jagirdar shall be allotted only 20 Bighas of land and he shall have to pay only the betterment charges for it. But before the publication of the amended rule in the Gazette, the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, by his order dated 4 -7 -67 in case of Narendra Kumar Goswami and by his order dated 21 -6 -67 in case of Dau Dayal Goswami allotted them each 20 Bighas of land in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area. He added a note that price and betterment charges shall be paid in accordance with the rules.
(2.) The petitioner Dau Dayal Goswami moved an application on November 30, 1967, that they should have been but have not yet been allotted 5 Bighas of land on temporary cultivation and he prayed that such temporary allotment may now be made to them. The Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, thereupon made a temporary allotment of 5 Bighas of land to them each on 7 -12 -67. The Tehsildar, Anupgarh, issued on 7 -9 -76 a notice to the petitioners demanding from each of them Rs. 1182/ - in one installment of the price of the land of 5 Bighas fixed under the Rajasthan Colonisation, (General Colony) Conditions, 1955, Rules 14 and 15.
(3.) The petitioners now pray for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from recovering the price of 5 Bighas of land except the betterment levy. They further prayed that the respondents be restrained from taking action against the petitioners for non payment of the said demand.;