JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, J.
1. All these writ petitions mentioned in Schedules A and B are disposed of by this common order as they involve common question of law and facts. However, for the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Rup Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3807 of 1992) are taken into consideration.
2. The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that the respondents may be directed to give possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners which is shown in the Schedule appended to the writ petition. The petitioners have further prayed that the respondents may be directed not be allot this land to any other persons till the decision of the writ petition.
3. The petitioners are residents of district Bikaner and Sri Ganganagar. The petitioners are agriculturists by profession and most of them are landless persons and are domicile persons of the State of Rajasthan. It is alleged that they are entitled for allotment of land in Indira Gandhi Canal Project. They all belong to low income group.
4. The Government of Rajasthan published in the Rajasthan Gazatte dated 5.1.1001 that land to be allotted by way of special allotment. The correct copy of the Gazette notification dated 5.1.1991 has been placed on the record as Annex. 1. All the petitioners have filed applications for allotment of land to them under special allotment. After detailed enquiry the Allotting Authority i.e. Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner accepted the applications of the petitioners and passed the allotment orders in favour of the petitioners. Copies of the allotment letters have been placed on the record as Annexs. 2/1 to 2/12. In pursuance of this, the petitioners deposited 35% of the total price. But the remaining 65% amount was to be deposited in 6 instalments. The first instalment was to start from the date of possession and every instalment was to be paid of possession every instalment was to be paid after six months thereafter. Rs. 500/- was deposited as earnest money adjustable against the last instalment. The petitioners have completed all the formalities required on their part but the possession of the land in dispute was not given to the petitioners. Meanwhile, the State Government put. a ban on the special allotment and stayed all the proceedings. All these proceeding remain stayed upto 13.5.1992 and this ban was lifted by the State Government by the order dated 13th May, 1992, which has been placed on the record as Annex. 4. When the petitioners came to know about the lifting of the ban, they approached the Colonization Commissioner and the Allotting Authority-cum-Assistant Colonization Commission, Bikaner and requested them that as per the Government order the cases in which the allotment letters have been issued and first instalment has been deposited, the possession of the land may be given to the petitioners without any further enquiry. But the authorities did not comply with the Government order and possession of the land was not given to the petitioners. Meanwhile, the respondents No. 2 and 3 issued a public notice dated 23.5.1992 a copy whereof has been placed on the record as Annex. 5 by which applications were invited for fresh allotment of land in Chhatargarh and Pugal Tehsils. When the petitioners came to know about the fact that the lands which have already been allotted to the petitioners have again been put to allotment, the petitioners requested the authorities that since all the formalities of the special allotment of this land have been complted and they have deposited the amount and the Government order is clear, therefore, they should not put this land to fresh allotment and possession of the land may be handed over to the petitioners. But without any result. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. A reply has been filed in the case of Smt. Kalawati v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5924 of 1992) and so also in the case of Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5619 of 1992) which were to be treated as reply in all the similar matters. The fact of allotment under Rule 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (referred to hereinafter as ‘the Rules of 1975’) has not been disputed and it is also not disputed that the petitioners have deposited 35% of the amount. It is submitted that the Allotting Authority after summary enquiry considered the cases of the petitioners and passed the allotment orders in favour of the petitioners and challans were passed and issued to the petitioners for depositing 35% of the amount of allotment. It is submitted that 35% of the amount of the price was deposited by the petitioners. It is submitted that this allotment was stayed by the State Government and thereafter, the State Government lifted the ban by issuing order on 13th May, 1992 and it was provided therein that where the allotment order has not been issued though 35% of the price of the land has been deposited then in such cases the allotment shall not be implemented. Therefore, it is submitted that since the allotment order has not been issued to the petitioners, therefore, they cannot be allotted the land in question as a proper order in Form No. XII under Rule 13(8) is required to be issued and it was not issued, therefore, the allotment in terms of the Government order dated 13th May, 1992 is not complete and the petitioners have not been given the land in question.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before me that the petitioners have completed all the formalities required under Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 and only a clerical work of issuing a formal order of allotment remains to be passed by the authorities. It is submitted that so far as the petitioners are concerned, nothing remains to be done by them as they have completed all the formalities of depositing the amount required under the Rules. It is submitted that there is no provision under the Act and the Rules which authorises the State Government to stay the proceedings. However, it is submitted that the act of issuing the allotment orders after all the formalities have been completed i.e. enquiry has been completed and 35% of the amount of price has been deposited. Only an administrative order was to be passed and if the administrative order has not been passed which was purely an administrative act and for that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer as they have completed all the formalities required on their part. The petitioners have also placed reliance of the Government order dated 13.5.1992.
7. Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 were framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 read with Section 28 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act of 1954’). Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 lays down sale of Govt. land by special allotment. This Rule 13-A was inserted by the Notification dated 20.2.1980 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra-Ordinary Part IV-C dated 20.2.1980 at page 555(1)(6). Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 is a mode of special allotment apart from the regular mode of allotment provided under these Rules. Rule 13-A which starts with a non-obstante clause, says that the State Government shall notify in the Official Gazette the land to be sold by special allotment to the persons who are eligible for such allotment in the order of preference given in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of these Rules. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13-A talks about issue and publication of notice and Sub-rule (3) about application for allotment. Sub-rule (4) talks about enquiry and report on application. Sub-rule (4) which is relevant for our purposes says that on receipt of an application the allotting authority shall register it in a register maintained in his office in Form No. XX and a receipt shall be issued in Form XXI to the applicant. The allotting authority shall scrutinise the applications and the annexed affidavits and shall verify the facts contained therein with reference to the relevant entries in the land record and shall conduct or get conducted such enquiry as he may consider necessary. After satisfying himself about the correctness of the information he shall fix the date, time and place for deciding the applications and shall affix a notice to this effect on the notice board of his office. Such notice shall not be of less than 7 days. It further says that if it is discovered at any time that any information submitted by any applicant is false or if any allottee fails to cultivate the land personally then the entire land allotted may be resumed by the allotting authority without payment of compensation. Rule 13-A(5) says that a sum equivalent to 5% of the notified price shall be deposited by the applicant as earnest money before his application is taken up for consideration by the allotting authority. The rates and mode of payment of the price have been amended from time to time and that has been determined by the authorities and they have directed that the incumbent should deposit 35% of the total price of the land. Therefore, the necessary enquiry as contemplated under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 and the determination of the price under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A was completed and the order was issued to this effect by the allotting authority which is on the record as Annex. 2/1 onwards.
8. In this it was clearly mentioned that the incumbent has to deposit 35% of the amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- of total price with three days after obtaining the challan from the office. The amount in question was deposited which is apparent from the endorsement made on Annex. 2/1 on 24.9.1991 which says that the applicant has deposited the 35% of the amount through challan No. 49 dated 1.8.1991 and it was directed that necessary orders for allotment be issued and the Tehsildar Colonisation shall deliver the possession. But in the meanwhile the Government stayed the matter, therefore, no steps could be taken for issuing formal allotment letters. Now, the Government has lifted the ban by communication dated 13.5.1992 and it says that the ban which was imposed on special allotment is lifted and it was also mentioned that all those candidates who are eligible according to Rule 7(1)(a) to 7(1)(j) and in whose favour the allotment order has been issued and they have deposited the amount of first instalment, then such allotment shall be recognised. But this has been interpreted by the respondents that only those allotments will be recognised in which the allotment orders have been issued.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before me that the issuance of a formal order of allotment was purely a ministerial act as the petitioners already deposited the 35% of the notified price and that step having been completed there remains nothing to be done. It is submitted that there is an endorsement on the order that the amount in question has been deposited through challan and a direction was also issued that allotment order be issued and possession be delivered. In some cases the orders have been issued and in some cases a formal order of allotment was not issued, because of Government stay on the special allotment proceedings. Therefore, it was submitted that there was nothing remained to be was to be done on the part of the petitioners and it was only a ministerial act which done by the ministerial staff of the respondents to issue the necessary orders and simply because they have not issued the orders that cannot prevent the petitioners to get the possession of the land in question as all the formalities for special allotment was completed.
10. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel and I think the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is justified. A perusal of the order which is on the record as Annex. 2/1 clearly says that after the necessary enquiry a positive order has been passed by the allotting authority allotting that land and directing the petitioners to deposit 35% of the amount. Thereafter, the amount in question was deposited by the petitioners which is also apparent from the endorsement made on this document that the 35% of the amount has already been deposited by the petitioners on 1.8.1991 through challan and it was also ordered that let allotment orders be issued now but this could not be issued for administrative reasons and thereafter a ban being followed. Therefore, it is apparent that whatever is required of the petitioners under the Rules the petitioners have completed all the formalities and simply because a formal letter has not been issued for allotment then it cannot be said that the petitioners cannot be put into possession of the land in question. I, therefore, hold that in cases where the enquiry has been completed and a formal order of allotment has been issued and the amount in question has been deposited by the incumbents in such cases the allotment orders may be issued and possession of the land be handed over to such persons on terms and conditions as contained in Annex. 2/1. Therefore, all the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule A are allowed.
11. The writ petitions mentioned in Schedule B are those cases in which the money was not deposited because of the ban imposed by the Government. In these cases no enquiry was undertaken as required by Sub-rule (4) of Rule 13-A and no direction was given for depositing 35% of the amount in question.
12. But the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Government has no power to stay the matter. Learned Counsel submitted that all the applications of the applicants cannot be dismissed under Rule 13-A. Learned Counsel in support of this contention has invited my attention to Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 155/1990, decided on 21.10.19.92) and Kartar Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1989 (2) WLN 673.
13. I have gone through the provisions of the Colonisation Act and the Rules and there is no specific provision conferring power on the State Government to pass an order of such nature staying the allotments. But nonetheless under Rule 13-A it is the State Government which has to notify in the Official Gazette the sale of certain Government land by way of special allotment. The notification has to be issued by the State Government that certain Government land is sold by way of special allotment. It is the State Government which decides that which Government land has to be sold by special allotment. The same authority can revoke or withdraw the order. Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act. 1955 confers a power on the authority who has issued the order to revoke, amend, vary or rescind and stay the order. Therefore, it is the State Government which issued the notification for allotment can always stay, amend, add, vary or rescind such order/notification. Therefore, to say that the State Government has no power to stay the allotment is not correct. By virtue of Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 the authority which issued the order can amend, add, vary or rescind the order. Therefore, the State Government was competent to issue stay order and revoke the order.
14. The case of Hari Singh (supra) does not provide an analogy because in that case the question was that whether by an executive order the State Government is competent to substitute a new rule in the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules. But that is not the case here. Here, the State Government has issued the notification providing sale of the its land by way of special allotment. This notification has been issued by the State Government in the purported exercise of power under Rule 13-A and it can always revoke, withdraw or rescind the same. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the State Government has no power to stay the special allotment.
15. Likewise is the case of Kartar Singh (supra). There also the question was regarding fixation of rates under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rule in which tariff schedule could only be amended by the Government. The Schedule was amended by an executive order of Secretary. Therefore, this also does not help the petitioners,
16. Hence, all these writ petitions where the applications of the applicants have not been processed and the incumbents have not deposited 35% of the notified price no right has been created in favour of such persons. Therefore, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions mentioned’ in Schedule B and hence, they are dismissed.