1 . CW-1990/2006 (Smt. Renu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2 . CW-1989/2006 (Kapoor Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) & 3. CW-1991/2006(Smt. Renu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Judgment dt: 13.05.2008 1 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1990/2006 (Smt. Renu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1989/2006 (Kapoor Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1991/2006 (Smt. Renu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Judgment : 13th May, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Varun Goyal for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Government Counsel. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. On 7th May, 2008 after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following order:- “The issue involved in the writ petition is that for special allotment of command land under Rule 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 the price could not be fixed with the stipulation of increase of 15% if the allotment is made after 1.1.2000. The case of the petitioners is that since they applied for special allotment on 14.9.1999, the respondent authority did not allot the land in question on or before 31.12.1999 but on 18.1.2000 with a view to fetch increase of 15% in the price as 1 . CW-1990/2006 (Smt. Renu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2 . CW-1989/2006 (Kapoor Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) & 3. CW-1991/2006(Smt. Renu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Judgment dt: 13.05.2008 2 given in the notification Annex.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that such an stipulation of 15% increase could not be made, as the State Government is merely authorized to make such special allotment 'at a fixed price' as stipulated in Rule 13A. In the present case, the allotment order Annex.4 on record is issued on 10.4.2000 (vide page 18-19 of the paper book) whereas the said case refers to application No.K-2- 149/99 dated 18.1.2000. Thus, there is a confusion as to whether the application of the petitioner was dated 14.9.1999 or 18.1.2000 itself falling after the cut of date 1.1.2000. Be that as it may, prima facie this Court is satisfied that while fixing the price of special allotment, the State Government could make an stipulation that the price of the land shall stand increased by 15% over the price fixed in column No.8 of the notification dated 15.7.1999 and price with such increase of 15% also remains 'the price fixed'. Moreover this being a contractual matter between the parties and there being no negative prohibition in the Rules restraining the State Government from providing for an increase on percentage basis on the price of land, this Court find no justification to interfere in the impugned allotment order at increased price. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for some time to study the matter further and prays for 1 . CW-1990/2006 (Smt. Renu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2 . CW-1989/2006 (Kapoor Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) & 3. CW-1991/2006(Smt. Renu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Judgment dt: 13.05.2008 3 short time. Put up on 12th May, 2008 as prayed.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to produce any case laws to support his contention today. He, however, relied on the provisions of Section 13A and submits that said provisions envisaged the increase in the notified price only if the land is converted from uncommand to command land by specific notification which is provided in Section 13A(5)(vii)(viii). 4. Having heard learned counsels and considering the submissions made at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that the words 'the price fixed' cannot be restricted to mean only price fixed at a particular level but can also include within its ambit and scope the percentage increase on annual basis as has been done in the impugned notification Annex.1 dated 15.7.1999. The petitioners also approached the learned Board of Revenue under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, however, the learned Board of Revenue also rejected the contention of the petitioners and found that price fixation was an administrative function of the State Government in which the Board of Revenue could not interfere under Section 9 of the Act. 5. A closer study of Section 13A of the Act on the other 1 . CW-1990/2006 (Smt. Renu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2 . CW-1989/2006 (Kapoor Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) & 3. CW-1991/2006(Smt. Renu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Judgment dt: 13.05.2008 4 hand clearly indicates that price after being fixed upon the recommendation of the Committee in accordance with the Section 13A(1) of the Act can be increased on the basis of percentage, once the land is notified to be a command land, the words 'increase at the rate of 15% per annum under Section 13A(5) clearly indicates that annual increase of 15% in the price of the command land is envisaged and duly specified in the provisions of the Act itself. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification fixing the price for a particular level in question plus 15% increase after 1.1.2000 cannot be assailed as the legislature itself has thought it fit to provide for such increase in these provisions. Moreover, this Court is of the opinion that this is a contractual matter between the State Government and the petitioners, the allottees of the land in question and while allotting the land to the petitioners under Section 13A of the Act if the price has been notified on a particular level with a pre-notified increase of 15% if the allotment is made after a cut off date of 1.1.2000, then the petitioners cannot take exception to the same. If they are willing to take the allotment on the increased price they are free to do so and if they choose not to take the allotment they are free to reject and refuse such allotment. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioners in these present cases applied for such allotment on 14.9.1999 and the allotment was made by the competent 1 . CW-1990/2006 (Smt. Renu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2 . CW-1989/2006 (Kapoor Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) & 3. CW-1991/2006(Smt. Renu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Judgment dt: 13.05.2008 5 authority on 18.1.2000 deliberately after cut off date of 1.1.2000 to fetch and secure such additional price of 15% the increase provided for in the notification Annex.1 cannot be accepted by this Court. There is no allegation of malafides against the competent authority in deliberately delaying the decision of the allotment on the application dated 14.9.1999. Even otherwise, the gap between the date of application dated 14.9.1999 and the date of allotment made on 18.1.2000 is also not so much, which is approximately 4 months, which can be said to be arbitrary or deliberately made with an oblique motive of securing increased price. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the challenge laid by the petitioner to the increase of 15% in the command land allotted to him is found to be devoid of merit. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. Item No.69 to 71 babulal/-