1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.589/2006 Ganesha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 13-03-2007 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI S.N.JHA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Shri G.R. Punia, for the appellant. This special appeal is directed against the order by which the stay application filed by the appellant was rejected. The dispute relates to payment of price of land allotted to the appellant under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Agricultural Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Area)Rules, 1975. The case of the appellant is that 25 bighas of land was allotted to him in 1993, and though he was always ready and willing to deposit 35% of the amount as per rules, on account of order of stay passed by the Government, he was not in a position to deposit the amount. Later, another allotment order was issued on 4.2.1997 in terms of which allotting the very same land at a rate prevailing at the time of allotment i.e. 1997. Further case of the appellant is that price of land once fixed cannot be revised, in support of this contention, reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishan Singh, (1992) 3 SCR 2 696 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarsem Singh and Another, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 709. In aforementioned case no doubt it was held that Government having already fixed the price and received the money from cultivators, it has no power to revise the prices. The decision however, has no application in the instant case. From a bare reading of the order dated 30.7.2003, it is manifest that the price (Rs.1,81,945/-) had wrongly been fixed in 1993. In terms of rule 15 of the allotment Rules, the price of 24.5 bighas command land would work out to be Rs.3,18,046/-. Accordingly, the Tehsildar was directed to serve revised demand upon the appellant to deposit 35% of the said amount (Rs.3,18,046/-). It would thus appear that it is not a case of revision of price but rectification of mistake. The order states in no uncertain terms that price had wrongly been fixed and in terms of rule 15, it should have been fixed at Rs.3,18,046/-. Counsel for the appellant referred to the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Purkha Ram and another, 1994 Supp(2) SCC 169. While considering similar provisions of the Rajasthan Colonization (Rajasthan Central Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1967, it was held therein that where the respondents have paid the price, fixed under Rule, there is no power for the Government to 3 revise the price already fixed and paid. The ratio of the decision is the same as in the cases of Kishan Singh and Tarsem Singh but as indicated above, the facts of the case were entirely different and the decisions have no bearing on the result of the present case. We thus find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer for stay. The appeal is dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. [S.N.JHA],CJ. Praveen