1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1101 of 1999 MOTI RAM V/S STATE OF RAJ. Mr. RAJEEV PUROHIT for Mr. BL PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RAMANDEEP SINGH for Mr. HSS KHARLIA, for the respondent Mr. HEMANT CHOUDHARY, A.G.C. Date of Order : 16.7.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant by this appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 22.7.1999 dismissing the writ petition which was filed seeking to challenge the order passed by the learned learned Special Judge dt. 1.6.1998 Annexure-4, and the order of the S.D.O. originally passed dt. 4.6.1992 Annexure-1, and also for striking down the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their Transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972. 2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the matter in the judgment reported in Pradesh Pong Bandh Vishapit Samiti Rajasthan Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1996 SC-3445, and in that case no grievance was raised regarding validity of provisions of Rule 6(3), however, the submission was considered, and was negatived. Then the merits of the order was considered, and it was found that the appellant had transferred the land by agreement to sale in violation of the conditions, and thus it cannot be said that the learned Special Judge has committed any error in passing the order dt. 1.6.1998. Arguing the appeal in the first place the challenge to Rule 6(3)of the Rules was reiterated. However, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act the submission was not pressed further. Then, the submission was made that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had only directed that the Special Judge should decide as to whether the original order is required to be reviewed, or not, obviously what was required to be seen was as to whether the reasons given in the original order (Annexure-1) were correct, or not, and it was not open to the learned Special Judge to take into account, or consider other reasons or grounds which may be available 3 for coming to the conclusion that allotment is required to be cancelled, or was rightly cancelled. Learned counsel was requested to read the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and paras 27 and 28 of the judgment were read to us. It would suffice to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those paras itself has clearly directed as under:- “....Even though the oustee allottee concerned may not appear, the District Judge shall review his case. Where the District Judge finds that an oustee allottee has committed a breach that invites the forfeiture of his land, he shall so record....The report shall be binding upon the oustee allottees and the State of Rajasthan...” The task was required to be completed within the time frame. In our view, this makes it clear that the learned Special Judge/Judge was under an obligation to review the original order of cancellation, and was to record conclusions one way, or the other, as to whether the oustee allottee has committed a breach, that invites forfeiture of his land, or not. No fetters were put by the Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring the District Judge to travel on the channels of finding out the correctness of the reasonings given in the original order of cancellation. 4 In that view of the matter this submission cannot be accepted. In the next place it was submitted that learned District Judge was only directed to record his conclusions, and then he has to submit his report to the committee which was constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while in the present case the matter has not been sent to the committee, and the District Judge has himself cancelled the allotment. In our view, a look at the writ petition, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge so also the present memo of appeal does show that this ground has never been raised i.e. the allegation of fact has not been made that the District Judge has not sent his report to the committee constituted. In absence of that this contention cannot be accepted. That apart it is required to be grasped that obviously judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above is binding on the parties, and in that judgment it has also been observed that the allotment of learned Special Judge shall be binding on the oustees as well as the State. Obviously, from a look at the order of the learned Special Judge Annexure-4 it is clear that he has only made record about his conclusions that the allottee has committed a breach which invites forfeiture of his land, and has simply dismissed the review petition. He has done nothing more. 5 That apart a look at para-28 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shows that thereby the committee was ordered to be constituted only as an implementing machinery to implement the recommendations of the District Judge, and to take consequential steps as mentioned therein. We may gainfully quote the precise words used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are as under:- “...The committee shall ensure that the recommendations of the District Judge are carried out and where so recommended, the original oustee allottee shall be put back in possession of the land allotted to him.” Thus, since the committee is only an implementing authority while in the present case nothing is to be implemented in favour of the petitioner-appellant, the submission made does not advance the cause of the appellant at all, and no relief can be granted to the appellant on that count either. The appeal thus has no force, and is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/