1 3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2529/2003. Ram Swaroop & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 9th February 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.L. Purohit ] Mr. Rajeev Purohit ], for the petitioners. Mr. G.R. Punia, Additional Advocate General. ..... BY THE COURT: This writ petition was submitted by the petitioners Ram Swaroop and others with the submissions, inter alia, that their land was taken over by the State Government for construction of Bisalpur Project; that on 12.03.1997, the State Government passed an order (Annex.1) reserving the land for allotment to such displaced persons; and, as directed by the order passed by the Additional Collector (Rehabilitation), Bisalpur on 05.04.1997 (Annex.2), they had deposited the requisite amount for allotment of land in their favour. The petitioners stated the grievance that out of 87 persons, to whom such allotments were made, 31 persons were not handed over possession of the land; and they were amongst the deprived lot. In this writ petition, on 28.05.2003, show cause notices were issued to the respondents and after service, when the matter was taken up on 06.11.2003, this Court passed the following order:- 2 ''Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the State will ascertain from the authorities as to why the petitioner has not been allotted the land when the similarly situated persons have been allotted the land. If there is no justification for the refusal to the petitioner, then the land be allotted to the petitioner forthwith, otherwise, the State will explain its position on the next date of hearing. Put up after four weeks.'' The matter was thereafter adjourned several times and then, on 21.03.2005, after hearing the parties, this Court passed the following order:- ''The respondent no.2 District Collector, Bhilwara is directed to again explore the possibility of giving land to the petitioner at Laxmipura, Tehsil Jahajpur in pursuance of the order Annex.3 by which land measuring 1.06 hectares has been allotted to the petitioner in Village Laxmipura, Tehsil Jahajpur. Reply may be filed by District Collector, Bhilwara within a period of one month from today.'' On 01.12.2005, this Court observed that in view of the aforesaid orders, it was required of the Collector, Bhilwara to have explored the possibility of giving the land to the petitioners at Laxmipura, Tehsil Jahajpur and reply was expected from the said Collector within a period of one month but the affidavit in reply as contemplated by the order dated 21.03.2005 was not filed until 23.11.2005. 3 It was noticed that in the affidavit as filed on 23.11.2005, the Collector, Bhilwara stated that the petitioners could not be allotted the land in village Laxmipura, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara owing to agitation of the public at large; that the main thrust of the alleged agitation had been that the land situated at Tehsil Jahajpur was a charagah land; that any attempt to give possession to the petitioners would lead to endangering the law and order situation; that the respondents were ready to allot alternative land to the petitioners in Tonk District; and that similarly situated persons had indeed been allotted alternative land in Tonk District and the petitioners might apply therefor to the Additional Collector (Rehabilitation). The petitioners, on the other hand, submitted an additional affidavit and a letter dated 25.11.2005 as issued by the Additional Collector (Rehabilitation), Devli wherein it was stated that if the option for alternative land was not given by 26.11.2005, it would be presumed that the petitioners were not interested in getting the land allotted in Tonk District. On being put to question about the manner in which the matter was being dealt with by the authorities and particularly about the threat held out to the petitioners by the letter dated 26.11.2005, the Deputy Government Advocate prayed for some time to make the position clear. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances,while considering it necessary that the authorities concerned should explain the reasons and 4 circumstances wherefor the letter dated 25.11.2005 was issued and granting time to explain, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, this writ petition was admitted for consideration on 07.08.2006; and then, came up before the Court on 26.09.2007. On 26.09.2007, this Court recorded prima facie satisfaction that the petitioners were entitled to get the land at Laxmipura to which the letter of allotment related to and the counsel for the respondents was directed to make a definite statement regarding problem against such allotment. Thereafter, on 29.10.2007, this Court again found the respondents not coming out specific as to why the land in question at Laxmipura could not be allotted to the petitioners; and directed that specific khasra-wise details of the land in dispute be furnished along with the reasons as to why the land in question could not be allotted to these displaced persons and as to whether any other persons were in possession of the same with further clarification if the State Government did not intend to allot the land in question to any other person. The officer-in-charge present before the Court was directed to remain present on the next date. Thereafter, the matter was yet further adjourned on several occasions but on 11.09.2008, the application for early hearing was allowed; and, while fixing the matter for final 5 hearing on 17.09.2008, this Court directed the officer-in- charge to remain present after noticing that such directions were indeed made on 29.10.2007. However, when the matter was taken up for final hearing on 07.01.2009, the learned Government Counsel stated that he was not in a position to address the Court and was not ready with the matter and it was noticed that the officer-in- charge was also not present. Looking to the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners was finally heard and the matter was placed for dictation of order on 12.01.2009. Then, though the matter was listed before the Court, but did not reach on 12.01.2009 and 19.01.2009. Thereafter, when the matter was placed on board on 28.01.2009 for dictation of order, the learned Additional Advocate General appeared and prayed for a couple of days’ time to complete his instructions and at the request, though expressing reservations, the matter was deferred. Thereafter, the matter was considered on 04.02.2009 and the learned Additional Advocate General placed for perusal a fax message received from the Collector, Bhilwara addressed to the Sub- Divisional Officer and Tehsildar, Jahajpur for delivering in possession the land at village Laxmipura to the petitioners in terms of the allotment order dated 07.05.1997; and it was submitted that the Tehsildar being present before the Court 6 would be reaching the site next day and all steps would be taken to deliver the possession of the land as per the allotment order. This Court recorded the proceedings thus: “This matter was taken up in the first half sitting of the Court and at the request of the learned Additional Advocate General was passed over to be taken up at 2'O clock. On the matter being taken up in the second- half sitting, the learned Additional Advocate General has shown a fax message received from the Collector, Bhilwara addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tehsildar, Jahajpur for delivering in possession the land at village Laxmipura, Tehsil Jahajpur to the present petitioners in terms of the allotment order dated 07.05.1997. Learned Additional Advocate General says that the Tehsildar being present today before this Court at Jodhpur, he shall be reaching the site tomorrow and all steps shall be taken positively by tomorrow to deliver the possession of the land as per the allotment order. A copy of the fax message be placed on record during the course of day. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioner No.1 and, if required, the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 or their authorised representatives, shall remain present at the site tomorrow. In view of the submissions as made by the learned Additional Advocate General, dictation of order in this matter is deferred. List this matter on 09.02.2009.” On the matter being taken up today, learned Additional Advocate General has placed for perusal a communication dated 05.02.2009 as received from the Tehsildar, Jahajpur stating that the required land has been handed over in possession to the petitioners and has been so recorded in the names of the petitioners on 05.02.2009. Learned counsel for 7 the petitioners also admits that the possession of the land in question has been delivered and no cause survives in the matter and this writ petition is practically rendered infructuous. Though for the steps now taken by the respondents, this writ petition is required to be dismissed as infructuous but then, this Court is constrained to put on record its dissatisfaction over the manner in which this matter was dealt with by the respondents and was unnecessarily prolonged while ignoring the orders after orders made by this Court and without making out a case as to why the land was not handed over in possession to the petitioners and as to what were the genuine difficulties thereagainst?. Some incomplete and cursory, and rather pretentious, averments about law and order problems were hardly of any justification that the authorities would shirk from their duties and responsibilities; and were not of any substitute of the requirements that the respondents ought to have adequately dealt with the matter of allotment of land and delivery of possession to the petitioners, the displaced persons. It is noticed that only after this Court expressed thorough dissatisfaction and anguish over the manner of dealing of the matter by the respondents that the Collector, Bhilwara proceeded to issue the order on 04.02.2009 for delivery of land in question in possession of the petitioners and only thereafter the other requirements were carried out 8 and else, one after another pretexts were put forward and somehow the matter was avoided. This writ petition has remained pending since the year 2003 and the matter relating to the allotment and delivery of possession of land to the petitioners had lingered since the year 1997; and the delay caused in this matter remains entirely inexplicable and is squarely attributable to the sheer apathy on behalf of the respondents in dealing with the rights of the petitioners. This petition has, of course, been rendered infructuous and is being dismissed as such but this Court is clearly of the view that the respondents ought to be put to terms for forcing the petitioners into this litigation and causing unnecessary delay in the matter. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand] in Legal Aid and produce a receipt thereof on the record of this writ petition. Though, no other order is being made towards costs for the petitioners; but it is left open for the petitioners to seek their remedies against the respondents for recovery of damages for the loss suffered by them, if so advised and if so chosen, of course, in accordance with law. It is made clear that it shall definitely be open for the respondents, of course in accordance with law, to recover the 9 amount of costs of Rs. 5000/- personally from the person/persons responsible for delay and defaults. With the observations and requirements aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//