Rang Lal Meena vs Ram Swaroop & Ors.

By way of this appeal, the original respondent no.4 has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned

Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner whereby the Deputy Secretary has passed an order dt. 10.11.1997 in

favour of the present appellant.

The facts of the case are that original petitioner preferred the writ petition with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dt. 10.11.1999 by

which the plot of land measuring 100x100 sq. feet was allotted to respondent no.4 by the Government in Village Mandawari of Panchayat Samiti

Lalsot and State Government as well as Gram Panchayat Mandawari be directed not to act contrary to the judgment passed by this court in favour

of the petitioner while rejecting the writ petition of original petitioner of 30.11.1994 and we further directed not to dispossess the petitioner from

the lands of plot no.1,2,3 & 4 and not to restrain the petitioner from raising construction on these plots. The petitioner claimed all these reliefs on

the premise that the land in question which is part of khasra no.588/1 was acquired for extension of Abadi by Gram Panchayat through the

Government possession of which was handed over to Gram Panchayat Mandawari and its mutation was entered in the name of Gram Panchayat

on 7.12.1970. Gram Panchayat issued public notice for auction of this land on 28.9.1977. Auction of the aforesaid plot and other plot took place

from 17.10.1977 to 22.10.1977. The appellant-herein encroached upon the said plot after issuance of the public notice on 1.10.1977 which was

removed on 4.10.1977. Challenging the auction and allotment of the plot, appellant filed revision petition before the Additional District Collector

which was dismissed on 24.3.1984. He then filed the writ petition No.540/1984 which was also dismissed on 13.12.1994. Further, DBSAW

No.914/1994 filed by him was also dismissed by division bench vide judgment dt. 28.3.1995. Now the vide order dt. 10.11.1997 made allotment

of the aforesaid land to the appellant on the premise that he was in possession of the same for the last 20 years. This allotment was made to the

appellant at DLC rates namely @ 275 per sq. yard which is meant for residential plots.

Counsel for the appellant contended that on 10.11.1997 an order came to be passed against the petitioner which was subject matter of

challenge but was suppressed from the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge has erroneously allowed the writ petition.

The matter has a chequered history. An auction of impugned plots was held in 1977 and the auction was challenged by the present appellant

before this court and he has lost upto the Division Bench which has attained finality and thereafter immediately pursuant to the condition of the

auction, which reads as under:-

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

It is contended that 1/4th amount was deposited but 3/4 amount deposited only after the litigation was over with the appellant.

Counsel for the appellant firmly contended that the respondent no.4-original petitioner has not deposited 3/4 amount and therefore, the

Government vide its order dt. 11.10.1995 vested the land in the Government and immediately it was allotted to the present appellant. Prima facie,

the present appellant has retained the possession for almost 40 years, without authority of law by legal procedure either before Revenue Authority

or Court.

The question which came for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge while considering the matter for setting aside the order of

10.11.1997 (Annexure-5) in favour of the present appellant was valid or not. Taking into consideration the fact that the auction held in 1977

attained the finality only in 1994 i.e. 13.12.1994 and immediately the petitioner has deposited 3/4 amount on 17.12.1994. In that view of the

matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition inasmuch as while considering the matter, the respondent was not in a position

to state whether 1/4th amount was forfeited or not merely because the order was passed on 10.11.1997, State Government will not vest the

earlier order of forfeiture and litigation pending before different authorities was not taken into consideration while considering the order of

10.11.1197.

The contention which has been raised that the appellant was in possession and he is entitled under Rule 266 and 156 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Rules, in our considered opinion, he was in illegal possession having lost upto the Division Bench of the High Court. In that view of

the matter, he will not be entitled for the benefit of the Rule.

The other contention that 3/4 amount is not deposited, in our considered opinion, because of the pendency of the litigation and there is no order

of cancellation and forfeiture of amount, in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ

petition.

The contention that there is no prayer for handing over land to the present appellant, in our considered opinion, the amount is deposited,

therefore, the land is to be handed over to the originalpetitioner- respondent no.1 herein which is a consequential prayer.

In that view of the matter, even if the prayer is not made, but to meet the ends of justice and to do complete justice between the parties, the

order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper.

In our considered opinion, this is nothing but abuse of process of law as the appellant has retained the possession without authority of law

under the guise of the litigation, therefore, possession is to be taken over by Collector, Dausa, immediately. We direct the Collector, Dausa to take

the possession of the land in dispute and act in accordance with law and hand over possession to the original petitioner who is entitled under the

auction of 1977. The report of taking over the possession will be placed on record before this court within a period of one week from today.

The appeal stands accordingly dismissed.

A copy of this order be given to Mr. Anurag Sharma, AAG to comply with the order to request the Collector, Dausa to act upon this order

immediately.