1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 913 of 1999 STATE OF RAJ. & ANR V/S TARA SALT INDUSTRY Mr. GR PUNIA, AAG, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SL JAIN, for the respondent Date of Order : 5.5.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 15.7.1998 allowing the writ petition of the respondent. The necessary facts are that a lease was granted for a period of 99 years for establishing a salt industry to one Jeevraj Sankhla s/o Seth Tejmal Sankhla on 20.9.1966 under and in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Area Allotment) Rules, 1959, hereafter referred to as the 1959 Rules. It appears that during subsistence of that lease the lessee expired, and one of the legal heirs Man Mohan Rai s/o Jeevraj applied for mutation of lease in his name for the remainder period, whereupon requisite sanction was granted on 25.11.1991, and it was directed that fresh lease be executed, but then at 2 the same time it was mentioned therein, that a reference has been made in the said sanction to the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Saline Areas Allotment) Rules, 1970, hereafter referred to as the Rules of 1970. This part of the order was opposed by the petitioner who claims to be the proprietor of M/s. Tara Salt Industry, on the ground, that lease was already granted in the year 1959, and the Rules of 1970 could not apply. However, communication Annexure-7 was issued to the petitioner clarifying that the lease deed shall be for the remainder period of term, and that he would be liable to make payments in accordance with 1970 Rules. It is in this factual scenario that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the Annexure-7 to the extent it directs that the petitioner will be liable to pay amounts under the Rules of 1970, declare that Rules of 1970 are not applicable, and for direction to the respondents to execute the lease deed, and send it to the Sub Registrar, Churu for registration, so also to allow the petitioner to manufacture salt in accordance with the lease originally granted. The writ petition was opposed by the present appellants, and the stand was taken that in para-VIII it is stipulated that the lessee shall be bound to pay such enhanced rent/lesser rent for user as a result of revision of rent from time to time, therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay increased rent as per the Rules of 1970. It 3 was also contended that since the State Government granted allotment with the condition that the provisions of Rules of 1970 would apply, therefore, the lease deed is to be executed under the Rules of 1970. At the outset we may observe that the reply has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2, and respondent no.1 is the State. In that view of the matter simply because the State Government has granted sanction for mutation with the condition of applicability of 1970 Rules does not ipso facto provids a defence to the State without substantiating correctness of the conditions imposed. Learned Single Judge has held that at the time when the lease was granted Rules of 1959 were in force, and Rule 3 provided for payment of development charges which is mentioned in the lease deed Annexure-1. It was found that the Rules of 1970 became applicable on 12.3.1970, which do not apply retrospectively. It was held that so far as Rules of 1959 are concerned, they provide only for the development charges, but so far as other matters are concerned, the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Saline Areas Allotment) Rules, 1962, hereafter referred to as 1962 Rules, were applicable when the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner's father. Now the Rules of 1970 are in force, which are applicable to the leases granted after 4 March 1970, and therefore, the condition imposed that the rent will be recoverable under the Rules of 1970 was found to be not applicable, and accordingly the writ petition was allowed, and it was held that the 1970 Rules are not applicable. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents available on record including the lease deed Annexure-1, so also the 1959 Rules, and 1970 Rules. A look at Annexure-1 shows that despite the fact that lease deed is dated 20.9.1966, but it has been made under and in accordance with the 1959 Rules, and does not make any reference of 1962 Rules. On going through 1970 Rules it is clear that vide Rule 21, 1962 Rules and all rules and orders corresponding to these rules in force immediately before the commencement of these rules was repealed, provided that any order made or action taken under the rules or orders so repealed, shall be deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provisions of the new rules. This provision is the million dollar circumstance in favour of the writ petitioner. At the cost of repetition it may be observed that Annexure-1 was granted in accordance with the provisions of 1959 Rules despite having been executed in 1966, and the provisions of 1962 Rules were not at all invoked, attracted, or relied 5 upon, for the purpose of making grant, or incorporate any stipulation contained in the Rules. Then, a combined look at the Rules of 1959, and 1970 Rules does show, that the two sets of Rules have entirely different field of operation, and do not appear to be overlapping, terms and conditions under both the rules are very materially different, and purpose thereof is also different. In such circumstances, simply because if the lease was granted for the purpose of establishing a salt industry, 1970 Rules ipso fact cannot be attracted. We, however, also concur with the learned Single Judge that the Rules of 1970 do not purport to be retrospective, and admittedly lease was not granted in accordance with the provisions of 1962 Rules. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal thus has no force,and the same is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/