JUDGMENT
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This appeal and the twenty-one appeals mentioned in Schedule ‘A’, arise out of the judgment dated 9-10-1995 passed by the learned single Judge. The controversy raised, grievances expressed and the relief sought are the same and as such they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. For the convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 373 of 1996 (State of Rajasthan and others v. Hazari Ram) are taken into consideration.
2. The land of petitioner-respondent Hazari Ram as well as the land of other petitioner-respondents in these appeals, in which they were holding the Khatedari rights, were acquired by the State Government for Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner. To rehabilitate these persons and the families, who were dispossessed from the Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner, a Notification No. F. 3(8) GSR. 162/Reve./Col./81 dated 23-11-1985 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part IV-C (1) dated 10-1-1986 (at page 339) to offer Barani/ command/uncommand, land in Bikaner district and in the I.G.N.P. area and out-side such area. In pursuance to this Notification, all the displaced persons including respondent-petitioner Hazari Ram, whose land were acquired from Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner, were allotted agricultural land. Petitioner-respondent Hazari Ram was allotted 40 Bighas of land and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.. 12,000/ – @ Rs. 300/- per Bihga – the rate fixed by the Notification dated 23-11-1985. This Notification was issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 read with Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 and Section 264 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1965. Hazari Ram deposited the whole price of the land in the State Treasury on 14-8-1986 vide Annexure 1.
4. On 9-2-1987, the Sub-Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner again issued a demond Notice requiring the petitioner-respondent to deposit Rs. 31,500/- in the State Treasury on the ground that 35 Bighas of land out of 40 Bighas, allotted to him, was Jonad Paitan land and, therefore, the price of the land, as per the proviso to Rule 17, should have been four times of the price of the Barani land and while issuing the earlier demand note the land has been treated as an ordinary Barani land. He was, therefore, asked to pay the balance amount of Rs. 31,500/-.
Shri Hazari Ram, in pursuance to this demand notice Annexure 2, deposited the amount of Rs.31,500/- in the State Treasury on 15-4-1987 vide Annexure 3. After the allotment of the land to the displaced persons/families of Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner, the land allotted to 54 persons became the command land in the year 1987. The State Government issued a letter to the Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner stating therein that as the land allotted to 54 displaced persons from the Mahajan Field Firing Range became a command land due to supply of water in Rajmalsar Minor (Distributory) and Jaimalsar Minor (Distri-butory), therefore, an option may be given to the allottees whether they want to retain the possession over this command land or not, and if they do not want to continue with the possession of the command land then equal Barani land may be allotted to them, but if they want to continue with the possession of the command land then upto 35 Bighas of command land may be allotted to them and they may be charged double of the fixed price of the command land and over and above 35 Bighas of land, the price of the remaining land will be charged as per the market rate.
4. In pursuance to this circular Annexure 4, Hazari Ram and other displaced persons, of Mahajan Field Firing Range, to whom the lands were allotted, were asked to deposit the balance price of the land calculated as per the Circular. Shri Hazari Ram and other agriculturists, to whom the lands were allotted under the Notification of 1985, filed the writ petitions challenging the Notification Annexure 4 as well as the Demand raised by the State Government in pursuance to the Notification Annexure 4.
5. In the writ petitions, it was contended by the petitioners that the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners were made under Rule 24 as a ‘Special Allotment’ and, therefore, the State and its functionaries cannot raise a fresh demand for the price of the land in the garb of the circular of 1987. The demand raised by the State and its functionaries are thus wholly without jurisdiction.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the State and its functionaries, on the other hand, was that since the land, which was allotted to the petitioners, became a command land and, therefore, as per Rule 17(4) of the Rules, the State Government can charge double of the price of the command land from the allottees as per the Notification of 1985 read with Rules 17 and 24 of the Rules.
7. The learned single Judge, by the common judgment dated 9-10-1995, allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners (present respondents) and quashed the Demand Notice issued against them on the basis of the Circular dated 19-10-1987 and, also, declared this Circular as non est and held that (i) after payment of the reserved price of the land in dispute in accordance with the Notification dated 23-11-1985, the respondents are not entitled to realise the difference of the price at the market value of the land in dispute from the petitioners in pursuance of the Departmental Instruction/Circular dated 19-10-1987; (ii) the Notification dated 23-11-1985 has not only fixed the reserved price for Barani land but has, also, fixed the reserved price of command and uncommand land in Indira Gandhi Canal Project Area; (iii) the power of fixation of reserved price, as contemplated under Act No. XXVII of 1954 read with the Rules of 1975 framed thereunder, cannot be said to be co-terminus with the power of the Colonization Department to fix or re-fix the reserved price at the market value of the land in dispute; and (iv) the State, by the Notification dated 23-11-1985 issued by the State Government for allotment of Government land in dispute to the petitioners, would operate as a promissory estoppel as the said Notification contains the representations made by the State Government insisting that the petitioners would act upon their representation and factually the petitioners have acted upon the said representation and have altered their position by depositing the reserved price fixed under the said Notification and after obtaining the Patta as well as the possession over the land in question.
It is against this judgment that the State of Rajasthan and others have preferred these twenty-three appeals.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants (State and others) that the allotments made by the State to the writ petitioners, were made under Rule 24 read with Rule 17 of the Rules and as per Rule 17(4) and Rules 13A of the Rules, the State Government can make a provision that if, at any time after the allotment of the Barani/un-command land, the land becomes a command land then the allottee shall pay to the State Government the reserved price of the command land in accordance with these rules. Since the Notification of 1985 makes a provision for charging the price at the rate double the reserved price fixed under Section 17, the State Government, therefore, rightly issued the Demand Notice in accordance with the Rules and the learned single Judge was, therefore, not right in quashing and setting-aside the Demand raised against the petitioner-respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners), on the other hand, have supported the judgment passed by the learned single Judge and contended that since the allotments were made under Rule 24 of the Rules and it was a ‘special allotment’ and, therefore, Rule 17 or Rule 13A of the Rules have no application so far as the allotment of the land to the petitioners is concerned.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The only controversy, which requires consideration in the present case is whether the State Government is entitled to raise a demand again for the difference of the price with respect to the land allotted to these displaced persons of Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner? A special Notification under Rule 24 of the Rules was issued to rehabilitate these displaced persons and to offer them the land equivalent to their land acquired for setting-up Mahajan Field Firing Range. The Notification of 1985 was issued by the State Government, by which the Sub-Division Officers of Bikaner district were given the powers of allotment of the land to the families of displaced persons from Majahan Field Firing Range in Bikaner district on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Notification. Later on, by the Circular dated 23-1-1988, the powers conferred on the Sub-Divisional Officers of Bikaner district were withdrawn and the Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner was delegated with the powers of allotment of the agricultural land. Clause (i) of the Notification makes the provision to offer Barani/ command/uncommand land in Bikaner district to the displaced persons/families of Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner. Clause (ii) of this Notification fixes the price @ Rs. 300/ – per Bigha for the Barani land which falls out-side the Project Area which is to be charged from the allottees. Clause (iii) of this Notification provides that the allottees shall be charged two times of the price of reserved land prescribed under Rule 17 of the Rules if the allottees’ land falls in the command or uncommand area of Indira Gandhi Canal Project. Clause (iv) of the Notification provides that one Bigha of command land shall be treated equal to two Bighas of uncommand land in the Project Area. Clause (v) of the Notification makes a provision that the total land to be allotted to the displaced persons/ families shall be equal to the land in area from which such person or the families have been displaced, subject to the ceiling limit as prescribed under the law for the time being in force.
12. The allotments made to the displaced persons/families of Mahajan Field Firing Range were ‘special allotments’ made under Rule 24 of the Rules and, therefore, so far as charging of the price of the land allotted to these allottees is concerned, that should be in accordance with this Notification, subject to the reserved price fixed under Rule 17 of the Rules.
13. So far as Rule 13A or Rule 17(4) of the Rules are concerned, they are not applicable to the allottees of Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner, Rule 17(1) is applicable only to the extent of the reserved price fixed under Rule 17 and not beyond that. Rule 17(4), which authorises the government to charge the difference of the price of the land after the uncommand land becomes a command land only in the cases where the allotment is made under the Rules and not to the ‘special allotments’ which are made under Rule 24 of the Rules.
14. So far as Rule 13A of the Rules is I concerned, that is, also, applicable with |’respect to the special allotments made in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules Rule 7 of
the Rules deals with the priority for allotment
of the land. So Rule 13A deals with the special
allotment made to the persons under Rule 7
and provides a procedure for such allotment.
Rule 13 A has, therefore, no application so far
as the cases of the present writ petitioners are
concerned.
15. Similar is the case with regard to applicability of Rule 17(4) of the Rules. Rule 17 also provides a procedure for allotment of the land and, also, makes a provision that if after the allotment of the land, the uncommand land becomes a command land then the allottee shall pay to the State Government the reserved price of a command land at the rate mentioned in the Rules. The payment of price by instalments have, also, been provided under sub-rule (6) of the Rule 17. This sub-rule (4) or the subsequent rules fixing the instalments has no application so far as the special allotments made under Rule 24 of the Rules are concerned. The cases of the writ petitioners are covered by the Notification dated 23-11-1985 as the allotments under Rule 24 were made by the State Government on the terms and conditions setup by this Notification and, therefore, the State Government cannot charge the difference of the amount as per Rule 17(4) of the Rules read with Rule 24. A reading of Rule 24 read with the Notification dated 23-11-1985 does not warrant such interpretation as has been given by the State Government by raising a demand against the writ petitioners. The State Government, after the allotment made and the price charged, cannot revise the price of the land if the land is converted from Barani/uncommand land to command land. The State Government can charge the betterment or any other charges if it is permissible under any of the provisions of the relevant Act and the Rules and in the cases where the uncommand/Barani land becomes a command land of the Khatedar, but the demand raised by the State and its functionaries in the present case, deserve to be quashed. Rule 17(4) or Rule 13A of the Rules are not applicable in the present cases and the State Government is not entitled to charge the difference of the price as per Rule 17(4) read with Rule 24 of the Rules. When once the allotment has been made as per the Rules and the demand of the price of the land, as per the rules, was raised, price has been charged/deposited and the possession was hand-over then in these circumstances the State or its functionaries are left with no right or power under the Rules to re-fix the price or to charge premium on the land.
16. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules, the appellants are entitled to charge the difference of the price after Barani/uncommand land becomes a command land. Rule 24(2) of the Rules states that if, at any time after coming into force of Rule 24, any Government land allotted as uncommand/Barani land, becomes a command land, the allottee or his transferee, including the subsequent transferee in possession of the land, as the case may be, shall pay to the State Government the price fixed for the allotment of command land under this rule at the time of initial allotment of uncommand/Barani land increased @ 15% per annum from the date of allotment upto the land becoming the command land less the price which he had already paid for the allotment of uncommand/Barani land.
This sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 was not on the statute book when the demand was raised in the year 1987. This sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 was added on 4-2-1992 when it was published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary Part IV-C (1)) and the demand was not raised by the appellants under sub-rule (2) of Rule 24; rather the demand was raised under Rule 17(4) of the Rules. The appellants, before the learned single Judge, did not place reliance over this sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 in raising the demand. It was only Rule 17(4) and the Notification of 1987 which were invoked while making the demand and, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the validity of the demand and the powers of the State Government in view of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules in the present case.
We, therefore, do not expresse any opinion whether the State Government is authorised to raise any demand under Rule 24(2) since no demand has been raised by the appellants under this rule in the present cases. But so far as Rule 17(4) of the Rules is concerned, that is not applicable to the case of the appellants under Rule 17(4) or under the Notification of 1987 and as such the demand raised was rightly struck down by the learned single Judge.
17. The learned single Judge was, therefore, right in allowing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and quashing and setting-aside the demand raised by the State Government and its functionaries. The judgment passed by the learned single Judge, therefore, does not require any interference.
18. In the result, we do not find any merit in these twenty-two appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.