1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) No.257 OF 1997 (SHANKER LAL V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.) Date of Judgment : 22.5.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. Mr. R.S.Gill, for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, A.G.A., for the respondent. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE GUPTA,J.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.1.1997 dismissing the writ petition. The facts are that the petitioner filed writ petition alleging inter-alia that the land in question being Murabba No.22/44 and 22/36 of Chak 2NSM was allotted in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the government dated 24.3.86 on permanent basis vide allotment order dated 12.5.1986 at a price of Rs.1,87,500/-. As required, the petitioner deposited 40% of the amount initially, and possession was received. Thereafter the land was developed. However, the Collector thereafter vide order dated 18.12.1986 unilaterally increased the allotment price of the land to Rs.3,28,125/- on the basis of some notification dated 21.10.1986. Thereafter, the 2 Collector vide order dated 28.4.1987 again informed the petitioner that the State Government vide its order dated 28.4.1987 has given its approval to fix the allotment price as originally fixed. This is produced as Annex.3. Thereafter again, an order dated 5.1.1989 was issued by the Collector mentioning that the State Government vide letter dated 31.12.1988 again fixed price of the land at Rs.3,28,125/-, hence the petitioner should pay the remaining amount. It is this order, which is under challenge in the writ petition mainly on the ground that once the allotment was made, it was not open to the State Government to unilaterally increase the price of the land. It is alleged that the price was fixed by the government, and after the land was allotted, State retained no jurisdiction to increase the price in the manner done. A reply to the writ petition was filed, alleging inter-alia that no sale by said allotment can take place unless price of such land has been fixed and the same has been notified by the State Government in official gazette from time to time, and that in the present case, government did make allotment at the determined price, but it was not a notified fixed price in the official gazette, and in some anticipated procedure, accrual of allotment was made for a price of Rs.1,87,500/-. It is then alleged that as per provisions of Rule 13A, notification fixing the price was required to be issued in the official gazette, and the price that may be notified is the real price, which cannot be scaled out. It is then pleaded in para 3 5 of the reply that the government realised that such revision of price from what has been notified in the official gazette for the land was not called for. There were complaints against the petitioner and it was found that the original price fixed was required to be adhered to, being the higher price, and that is being demanded from the petitioner. Thus, it was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. It may be observed here that the case of the respondent was that the land was allotted to the petitioner under Rule 13A. Then the petitioner filed a rejoinder contending inter-alia that the land was not allotted to him under Rule 13A, but was allotted under Rule 24, and for such allotment, the price more than the allotment price cannot be charged, and in that regard, reliance was placed on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.85/88 “Banwari Lal Vs. State” decided on 27.9.1989. It was then pleaded that the plea of the State is wrong when it pleads that the allotment was made in pursuance of the notification of official gazette dated 4.12.1986, rather the allotment was made way-back on 12.5.1986, and once the allotment was made, it was not open to the State to make upward revision of the price unilaterally. Then it is also pleaded that since the land was allotted to the petitioner prior to the official gazette, and therefore, a notification was again issued on 11.3.1987 deleting these lands from the notification dated 4.12.1986. This has been produced as Annex.5. Then a copy of the letter dated 4 22.4.1987 issued by the State Government has also been produced as Annex.6, conveying that the land was allotted to the petitioner at the price of Rs.1,87,500/- under Rule 24. Thus, it was prayed that the stand taken in the reply is wrong and the writ is required to be allowed. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, finding inter-alia that as appears from the reply there were complaints against the petitioner while he was allotted land at a price of Rs.1,87,500/-, and no notification was issued, therefore, it was sought to be raised, but the same was withdrawn for certain reasons. Then after making inquiry, it was decided to raise the price by government order dated 31.12.1985, and therefore, the Collector has passed the impugned order, Annex.4, fixing the price of Rs.3,28,125/- instead of Rs.1,87,500/- fixed earlier. Then it has been held as under:- “Except the bare assertion on the part of the petitioner that the land was allotted under Rule 24 and not under rule 13-A, there is nothing on record to prove this case. On the contrary, from the reply affidavit and the material on record, it is clear that the allotment was under Rule 13-A and the Government had all the powers to fix the price...” In our view, a look at the record of the writ petition shows that this finding of the learned Single Judge is clearly contrary to Annex.5 and 6 produced by the petitioner alongwith the rejoinder, wherein vide 5 Annex.5, the lands in question were deleted from the notification issued, advertising the lands to be available for allotment under Rule 13A, and vide Annex.6, sanction was conveyed for allotment of the land in question under Rule 24 at a price of Rs.1,87,500/-. A look at Annex.4, the impugned order in the writ petition itself also shows that it does recite about the price having been determined at Rs.1,87,500/- vide letter dated 22.4.1987, which is Annex.6, and then Annex.4 proceeds further that now the State Government has decided the price at Rs.3,28,125/-. It would suffice to say that it is not the content of Annex.4 that the land in question was notified to be allotted under Rule 13A at a price of Rs.3,28,125/-, and was wrongly allotted at a price of Rs.1,87,500/-, rather Anex.6 is owned in Annex.4, and without anything else, it is simply recited that now the State Government has determined the revised price at Rs.3,28,125/-. In our view, thus, it is clear firstly that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are clearly appear to be outcome of non-reading of Annex.5 and 6, apart from the fact that Annex.6 is owned in Annex.4. Likewise, even in Annex.4, it is not the ground given for revision of the price that the land in question was notified under Rule 13A to be allotted at a price of Rs.3,28,125/-, and was wrongly allotted at a price of Rs.1,87,500/-. In that view of the matter, since Annex.4 proceeds on the basis that now State Government has redetermined the price at 6 Rs.3,28,125/-, the same was being demanded, which alleged redetermination of the price by the State Government, in our view, is not supported by any authority of law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed, and the order, Annex.4, is quashed. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI),J. (N.P.GUPTA),J. /tarun/