DALU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1286/1997) 1 DALU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1286/1997) Dated: 21.4.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.Kashi Nath Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel, for the respondents. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged validity of notice dated 17.2.97 issued by the Tehsildar(Revenue), Rawatsar, in the name of his father Shri Hira (since deceased) whereby he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.17,215/- alleged to be due against the cost of the land allotted to him in Chak 14 NWD . 2. The petitioner's father late Shri Hira was allotted 20 bighas and 10 biswas land in Chak No. 14 NWD free of cost vide order dated 13.2.73 passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Rawatsar. The said land was already in possession of the petitioner's father before the year 1955 under the temporary allotment. Later, it was revealed that the petitioner's father was already having 53 bighas khatedari land therefore, he was not entitled for allotment of the land free of cost. Accordingly, vide order dated 6.8.81 passed by the Allotting Authority , the cost of the land quantified at Rs. 24,215.62 was DALU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1286/1997) 2 ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. It is stated that a sum of Rs.7,000/- was paid by the petitioner against the demand created as aforesaid, however, the remaining amount was not paid.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently, vide order dated 19.7.94, the land in question was allotted free of cost in the name of the petitioner herein, his bothers and sisters therefore, the order dated 6.8.81 does not survive and consequently, the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent authority is not sustainable in eye of law. 3. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition has taken the stand that allotment was obtained by the petitioner's father concealing the fact that he was already having khatedari land in his name therefore, after giving an opportunity of hearing vide order dated 6.8.81, he was directed to deposit the cost of the land quantified at Rs.24,215.62. It is submitted that the said order was accepted by the petitioner's father and an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was deposited on 16.6.89. It is submitted that the petitioner's father having accepted the order dated 6.8.81, the demand raised by the vide impugned notice which is only consequential cannot be faulted with. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the submissions made in the writ petition noticed above contended that in view of the subsequent order dated 19.7.94 DALU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1286/1997) 3 passed by the competent authority granting khatedari rights of the land in question in favour of the petitioner, his brothers and sisters free of cost in terms of the provisions of Section 15 AAA (2A) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( in short “the Act of 1955” hereinafter), the order dated 6.8.81 does not survive therefore, the impugned demand notice deserves to be quashed and set aside for this reason alone. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue while reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the writ petition as aforesaid submitted that by subsequent order dated 19.7.94, the earlier order dated 6.8.81 has not been cancelled therefore, the petitioner is under an obligation to discharge the liability created thereunder. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was directed to deposit the cost of the land inasmuch as, in view of the agriculture land already held by him, he was not entitled for allotment of the land free of cost. It is to be noticed that Section 15 AAA of the Act of 1955 deals with the accrual of khatedari rights in Indira Gandhi Canal Area. By Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1992, sub-section (2A) was inserted in Section 15 AAA which reads as under:- DALU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1286/1997) 4 “(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 15-A, any person who was a holder of Khudkasht or a tenant of land otherwise than as a sub-tenant or a tenant of Khudkasht within the Indira Gandhi Canal area, whether recorded as such at the commencement of this Act or subsequently in the record of rights, prepared during the survey or re-survey and record operations conducted under sections 106 and 107 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956( Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956), shall be entitled to all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities , of a Khatedar tenant under this Act, with respect to the whole or such part of the land held as does not exceed the maximum area of land which he is entitled to hold in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973( Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1973).” 8. A perusal of order dated 19.7.94 goes to show that the land in possession of the petitioner, his brothers and sisters was found to be less than the ceiling limit and therefore, they were held entitled for khatedari rights of the land in question free of cost. The petitioner, his brothers and sisters having been granted khatedari rights of the land in question in terms of the provisions of Section 15 AAA(2A) of the Act of 1955 , obviously, the very basis of the order dated 6.8.81 directing recovery of the cost of the land in question from the petitioner's father does not survive and it has rendered infructuous. Thus, in considered opinion of this court, the impugned demand notice issued in the name of the petitioner's father in pursuance of order dated 6.8.81 is not sustainable in eye of law. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby DALU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1286/1997) 5 allowed. The impugned notice 17.2.97 is quashed and set aside . No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/-