Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Fateh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 19 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995RAJ15
Author: V.G. Palshikar
Bench: V.G. Palshikar
ORDER V.G. Palshikar, J.
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Govt. on 25th January 1983 (Anx. P/10), which reads thus:-
^^jktLFkku ljdkj jktLo ¼xzqi&3½foHkkx &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Øekad %&&i- 2¼355½ jkt@3@81 t;iqj] fnukad 25&1&83 izssf"kr %&& ftyk/kh'k] lokbZek/kksiqj A fo"k; %&& izkFkZuk i= Jh Qrsg flag Jh lxr flag Hkw- iw- tkxhjnkj xzke pksjfM;k] gky lokbZek/kksiqj ckcr Ñf"k Hkwfe [k- ua- 23@351 ,oa 47@354] jdck 49 ch?kk ekStk vuqix<] 58 ekStk ek/kksiqj esa Hkwfe fnykus A laUnHkZ %& vkidk i= Øekad i-
3¼4½jkt@82@7813 fnukad 14&12&82-
-----------------------------
egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr laUnHkZ esa bl foHkkx ds lela[;d i= fnukad 6&12&82 }kjk izkFkhZ Jh Qrsg flag tks ekStk vuqix<] rglhy jktflaguxj dh Hkwfe ds cnys [k- ua- 58 ekStk ek/kksflagiqjk] rglhy lokbZek/kksiqj dh Hkqfe ds ,DlpsUt fd;s tkus dh LohÑfr vkns'k dks rqjUr izHkko ls LFkfxr dh tkrh gS] vksn'kkuqlkj funsZ'k gS fd vkxkeh vkns'k rd ekstk jkflagiqjk@ek/kksflagiqjk dh [kljk ua- 58 es ls 49 ch?kk Hkwfe dk dCtk Jh Qrsg flag dks ugha fn;k tkosa] vkSj ;fn ns fn;k x;k gks rks og Hkwfe rRdky okil jktLo foHkkx ds vf/kdkj esa yh tkosa A vkns'kksa dh ikyuk fjiksVZ ykSVrh Mkd ls fHktokosa A Hkonh;] g-@& mi 'kklu lfpo**
2. A reading of the above order makes it abundantly clear that it is an interim order and yet it proceeds to decide finally the question of possession. It is challenged on the ground of total lack of jurisdiction in the State to do so and assuming that there is such jurisdiction, it is violative of the principles of natural justice as it is passed without giving any opportunity of any kind to the petitioner to show cause. Facts necessary to adjudicate upon this dispute are as under: -
That on 27th July 1961, the petitioner who was Ex-Jagir, was allotted 50 bighas of land/ An allotment letter was issued on 26th February 1962 and since then the petitioner was in possession of the land covered by this allotment order. The petitioner cultivated that land for about 19 years. While he was in service, having found that it has become increasingly difficult for the petitioner to cultivate this land which was situated in Sriganganagar Distt., from the place of his employment which was situated in Sawai-madhopur District, he therefore, applied on 26th August 1981 for exchange of land in Sriganganagar Distt. with the land in Sawai-madhopur.
3-4. That the proposal of exchange, as submitted by the petitioner, was accepted by the State and the acceptance was communicated by Anx. P/3 dated 6th December 1982. The acceptance of exchange was subject to certain conditions mentioned in Anx. P/3. The petitioner fulfilled those conditions, delivered possession of the land in Sriganganagar to the State and took possession of the land in Sawaimadhopur District.
5. That according to the Govt. it was revealed that the petitioner, has already entered into an agreement to sell the land in Sriganganagar to one Shri Ghanshyam Singh and has thus committed fraud on the State in obtaining acceptance of the exchange of the land, hence the impugned order was made.
6. It is obvious from the impugned order that proceedings are contemplated by the State which granted the exchange, to revoke grant, as is evident by the letter dated 6-12-82 on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation etc. by the petitioner. The power of the State to do so is disputed by the petitioner in this petition. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause in these proceedings, by which the acceptance of exchange dated 6-12-82 was sought to be revoked. In view of this admitted position, the violation of the basic principles of natural justice is evidently proved and on this ground alone, the order dated 29-1-83 is liable to be quashed. There is, in my opinion, no reason to go into the other disputed question of fact, which will remain open for the parties to raise and get adjudicated upon before the State Govt. The petitioner shall be at liberty to canvass before the State Government, all the issues and submissions on the basis of which he has contended in this petition that the order revoking exchange is unsustainable. The petitioner shall be at liberty to canvass before the State, lack of jurisdiction and lack of power in the State to review the earlier transaction. The fact that 19 years have passed since the date of allotment, it shall be open for the State Government to consider these submissions and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, decide the question of exchange being proper. It is also made clear that the right of the petitioner to challenge the adverse orders, if any, is also intact. Till the question of validity of exchange is decided by a competent authority, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed, save by due process of law.
7. With these observations, the rule is made absolute. There will be no orders as to costs.