Holding

The 1992 amendment increasing the non‑transferability period to 25 years and introducing Rule 6‑A is unconstitutional and is quashed, and the State must review all cancellations and set up a settlement committee for the oustees.

Summary

The case concerned the Pong Dam oustees displaced by the dam in Himachal Pradesh, who were to be resettled in Rajasthan under inter‑state agreements. Rajasthan amended its 1972 colonisation rules in 1992, extending the non‑transferability period from 20 to 25 years and introducing Rule 6‑A allowing re‑allocation of reverted lands to Rajasthan residents. The oustees challenged these amendments as violative of the inter‑state settlement agreement and of constitutional guarantees of equality and natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the amendments were made unilaterally, were mala fide, and infringed Article 14 of the Constitution, and therefore quashed them. The Court directed the Rajasthan High Court to appoint District Judges to review all cancellations of allotments post‑1 January 1992, and ordered the Union to constitute a committee to oversee the settlement of oustees, ensuring provision of essential facilities and restitution of lands where appropriate. The writ petition was allowed and costs awarded to the petitioners.

Issues considered

The validity of the 1992 amendment to the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules increasing the non‑transferability period from 20 to 25 years.
The constitutionality of introducing Rule 6‑A permitting sale of reverted lands to Rajasthan residents.
Whether the amendment violated the inter‑state settlement agreement and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The appropriate remedial measures for the oustees, including review of cancellations and settlement mechanisms.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 142, s. Article 32

Subjects

inter‑state water disputeland allotmentousteesresettlementconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 32Article 142natural justicequashing of rules

Judgment

PRADESH PONG BANDH VISTHAPIT SAMIT!, RAJASTHAN A
v.
UNION OF INDIA

JULY 26, 1996

[S.P. BHARUCHA AJ\U S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B

Rajastha11 Colo11isatio11 (Allotment a11d Sale of Govemme11t land to
Po11g Dam Oustees a11d their tra11sferees in the Indira Ga11dhi Ca11al Colo11y
Area) Rules 1972:-Rules 3, 4, 6(3), 6-A, 8-AAA-Consequent upo11 agreement
betwee11 states of Himachal Pradesh and Rajastha11, Po11g oustees of C
Himachal Pradesh allotted lands in Rajasthan-Rule 6-A i11troduced by
amendme11t i11 1992 whereby Rajasthan sought to regularise possessio11 of
Rajasthanis 011 la11ds allotted to oustees-New proviso to Rule 6(3 )increased
the period of ball 011 sale of allotted land from 20 to 25 years-Held, Rules
disfavoured the allottees and favoured the Rajastha11is co11tra1y to the agree- D
me11ts betwee11 the States; Amendment to proviso to Rule 6(3) a11d Rule 6-A
quaslied-Co11stitution of India, A1ticle 14.

Constitutio11 of lndia-A1ticle 32:-Wiit petitio11 by Po11g Dam oustees
challe11ging validity of ame11dme11t lo Rajasthan Rules facilitati11g cancella-
tion of allotments a11d regula1ising.possession of Rajastha11is-Ma11y oustees E
not allqtted lands eve11 after twe11ty-four ye.prs-Held, directio11s necessary if
the oustees were to get their due, directio11s given for review by a District Judge

- of all cases of ca11cellatio11 of allotments a11d for co11stitutio11 of a Committee
to ensure settlement of all oustees in the command area of I11dira Gandlzi
Canal--Co11stitution of I11dia, A1ticle 142.
F
Construction or the Pong Dam on the Reas River began in 1960.
Although the waters impounded were within Himachal Pradesh, the benefit
thereor accrued to a dominant extent to Rajasthan. To consider the
problems or the oustees a series of meetings were held between the two
States. It was agreed that every oustee would be allotted land in the Indira G
Gandhi canal area in Rajastban under certain conditions including that
of non-transrerability for ten year from the date of allotment. .

On September 15, 1972 the Government of Rajasthan made the
Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam
Oustees in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules 1972. Consequent H
65
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A upon further meetings between the states, these rules were amended in
1982 to provide, inter alia, that right to sell the allotted land would not
accrue before the expiry of 20 years and that before allotment orders were
issued, all encroachments would be removed.

On March 12, 1992 the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale
B of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their transferees in the
Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules 1992 ('Rules')_ were published.
The proviso to rule 6(3) was amended to increase the ban on transferability
from 20 to 25 years. Further, Rule 6-A was introduced whereby the Govern-
ment of Rajasthan was entitled to sell lands which had reverted to it as a
C result of the breach of the Rules and allot such lands to bonafide residents
of Rajasthan.

The present writ petition by the oustees was filed challenging the
Rules and seeking directions to the State of Rajasthan to recognise allot-
tees of land allotted to them as khatedars immediately on the expiry of ten
D years from the date of original allotment; to withdraw the cancellation of
allotments where allotments had already been cancelled; and to allot land
to oustees who had not yet been allotted any. The principal ground was
that Rajasthan, having obtained the benefit of the waters impounded in
the Pong dam, had reneged on its obligations to the oustees and dis-
E criminated against them in favour of the oustees.

Consequent upon representations made .to the Rajasthan Govern-
ment regarding the harsh operation of the Rules, a new Rule 8-AAA was
introduced pern1itting suo nzotu review of cases where allotments had been
..
cancelled under Rules 6(4) or lands reallotted under Rules 6-A.
F
Rajasthan State in its affidavit informed the Court that a survey
conducted in December, 1991 showed that out of 5076 allottees only 549
were iu possession of the land allotted, 212 allotments were lying .vacant
and 4315 allottees had transferred their lands to persons who were not
G oustees. The State of Himachal Pradesh supported the petitioners.

Allowing the Writ petition, this Court

HELD : 1. The notification dated 12th March, 1992 amending the
Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam
H Oustees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972, and, consequent-
PRADESH PONG BANDH VIS1HAPITSAMITI v. U.0.1. 67

l~, the substitution of 25 years for 20 years in the proviso to Rule 6(3) and A
the introduction of Rule 6-A are quashed and set aside. (89-C-D]

1.2. The State of Rajasthan had disfavoured oustees and favoured
the Rajasthanis and had made rules and implemented them with that in
mind. [89-C]
B
1.3. When the 20 years period was nearing completion in 1992 the
State of Rajasthan unilaterally increased the period by 5 years by amend-
ing the proviso to Rule 6(3). The State of Rajasthan could not change
• unilaterally what was the subject of agreement as aforestated; besides, the
right to sell the land after 20 years vested in the allotteed and such a right C
could not be divested. (87-E-F]

1.4. There was substance in the plea of the State of Himachal
Pradesh that the period had been increased with a view to gain time to
cancel allotments on the pretext that the oustees had breached one or other D
condition of allotment and that the amendment is a malafide exercise of
power. Rule 6-A was bad because the land reserved for oustees must go,
on reversion to the State of Rajasthan, to such oustees as remained
unsettled. [87-F-G]

1.5. It was reasonable to assume that upon dispossession the oustee E
allottee would have retreated to his native State of )limachal Pradesh. It
W"dS manifestly absorb to except him to read the Rajasthan Gazette and
make a review applicatfon under the provisions of Rule 8-AAA within 60
days of its publication. The provision for review in Rule 8-AAA where Rule
6-A had not been applied was illusory; the agreement between the States of
Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh in this behalf was not honoured. F
(88-F-G]
2.1. Directions are necessary if the oustees were to get their due. The
Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court would nominate one or more
District Judges for reviewing the cases of all cancellations of allotments to G
oustees subsequent to 1st January, 1992. For the purpose of such review .
the State of Rajasthan would produce before the District Judge .the entire
record pertaining to each such allotment and cancellation. (89-B; E-G)

2.2. Even though the oustee allottee concerned may not appear, the
district Judge shall review his case. Where the Disl(ict Judge finds that H
' '
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A an oustees allottee had committed a breach that invited forfeiture of his
land, he shall so record. Where the District Judge finds to the contrary,
whether or not the oustees allottee appeared he shall so record. The
District Judge shall also record, should he so find.that the oustte allottee
was forced to leave the land because of lack of irrigation or other essential
B facilities such as water, roads, schools and medical assistance and/or
because of coercion, intimidation or trespass. [89-H; 90-A-B)

2.3. A Committee shall be constituted by the Union of India which
shall have the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Union of India, as
its Chairman and the Secretaries of the appropriate Ministries in the
C States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh as its members. [90-C-D]

2.4. The Committee shall be responsible for the settlement in the
command_ area of the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony in Rajasthan of all
oustees who have secured certificates of eligibility in that behalf from the
State of Himachal Pradesh, except those who, having been allotted land,
D have been found by the District Judge aforementioned to have forfeited it,
provided that they were not forced to leave the land because of lack of
irrigation or other essential facilities such as water, roads, schools and
medical assistance and/or because of coercion, intimidation or trespass.
Such land only shall revert to the State of Rajasthan and it shall be
E utilised for the purpose of allotment to oustees not yet settled. [90-D-F]
2.5. The District Judge shall send his reports to the Committee. The
reports shall be binding upon the oustee allottees and the State of Rajas·
than. The District Judge shall complete the task allotted to him as soon
as is reasonably possible and, in any event, within 18 months of beginning
F it. [90-B-CJ

2.6. The Committee shall ensure that the recommendations of the
District Judge were carried out and, where so recommended, the original
oustee allottee shall be put back in possession of the land allotted to him.
G In the event that for some supervening reason this could not be done, it
shall be the obligation of the State of Rajasthan to make available an
equivalent extent of irrigable land in the said command area for being
allotted to him. [90-F-G]

2.7. The oustee allottee shall not be liable to make any additional
H payment in either event. Where, on re-settlement of oustees, additional
PRADESH PONG BANDH VISTIIAPIT SAMlTI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 69

monies had already been collected by the State of Rajasthan, they would A
be refunded. The Committee would ensure that essential facilities such as
water, roads, schools and dispensaries are available to the oustee allottees.
The directions of the Committee in regard to all matters entrusted by this
order to it and all its consequential or incidental directions shall be
binding on the State of Rajasthan. (90-G-H] B
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 439 of
1992.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
.. Ms. Indira Jaisingh and V.C. Mahajan, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, c
Ms. Richa Goyal, Ms. A Shenoy, Aruneshwar Gupta, Rajiv Nanda, T.A.
Khan, T. Sridharan, AK. Srivastava and P. Parmeswaran for the appearing
parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
•• BHARUCHA, J. This is a writ petition seeking the quashing of a
notification dated 12th March, 1992, issued by the State of Rajasthan,
amending the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government
Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their transferee$ in the Indira Gandhi
Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972. The writ petition also seeks directions to E
the State of Rajasthan to recognise allottees of land allotted to them as
khatedars immediately on the expiry of ten years from the date of original
allotment; to withdraw the cancellation of allotments where allotments had
already been cancelled; and to allot land to oustees who had not yet been
allotted any.
F
Construction work on the Pong Dam on the river Beas commenced
in the year 1960. The land whose acquisition was requisite for the purpose
then fell within the State of Punjab. After the reorganisation of State
boundaries on lst November, 1966, that land fell within the territorial limits
of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Although the waters impounded by the G
Pong Dam were within the State of Himachal Pradesh, the benefit thereof
accrued to a dominant extent to the State of Rajasthan.

The problems thrown up by the acquisition of the land were con-
sidered first between representatives of the States of Rajasthan and Punjab.
On 20th August, 1962, at a meeting with the then Union Secretary for H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Irrigation and Power and the representatives of these two States, :it was
agreed that oustees of the Pong Dam, the Rajasthan Feeder and the Beas
Sutlej Link would be eligible for allotment of land in the Rajasthan Canal
area, i.e., in the State of Rajasthan. Meetings were then held between
representatives of Union Ministry 'of Irrigation & Power and repre-
sentatives of the States of Ra]· as than and Himachal Pradesh from time to
B
time. The Government of Himachal Pradesh estimated in 1969 that a total
number of 20722 persons would be ousted by reason of the acquisition and
·gave this figure to the committee of Secretaries. It was accepted by the
committee and placed before the committee of the concerned Chief
Ministers. These figures were not questioned by the Rajasthan Govern-
C ment. There were some difficulties that then arose between the two States.
The concerned Chief Ministers decided that the matter be finally left to
the Cabinet Secretary. The main points of dispute related to the eligibility
for allotment of land for resettlement and the eligibility of successors to
land holders who had lawfully inherited land owning rights after 1961. The
D definition of oustee had been mutually agreed to be, so far as is relevant,
this :

"For the purposes of resettlement of and 'oustee' from the Beas
..•
Project area, .one must be a person residing permanently ·within
the area acquired for the construction of the Beas Project either
E with effect from or, earlier than the 31st March, 1961 whether as
a land~owner, tenant, landless labourer or an artisan. 11

At a meeting held on 3/4 September, 1970, the Chief Ministers had agreed
that, irrespective of the extent of land acquired from an oustee, an oustee
F family w~mld be given an allotment of 15.625 acres. This was based upon
....
the view of the Planning Commission about viable holdings for the pur-
poses of agriculture. On 14th December, 1968, the concerned Chief Mini-
sters agreed that artisans, labourers, landless tenants, etc. would be given
house sites within the abadi areas but no land as such , and the abadi areas
were to be included in the total of 3.25 lakhs acres to be set apart for
G oustees in the Rajasthan Canal Project area. The oustees were to pay a
concessional price for the land allotted to them, the basis being the price
payable by Rajashthani landless labour allotted land in the area. The
Rajasthan Colonisation Department was expected to provide housing,
roads, water supply, etc. for the houses that were to be paid for by the
H oustees. It was agreed on 3rd/4th September, 1970 by the Chief Miinister
PRADESH PONG BANDHVISTHAPITSAMITI v. U.O.l. [BHARUCHA, J.] 71

of Himachal Pradesh, at a meeting of the Chief Ministers of the concerned A
States, that, although the total requirement of land on the basis of 15.625
acres for 20722 oustee families would be 3.25 lakh acres, he would be
content with a maximum of 2.25 lakh acres and compensate allottees left
out within Himachal Pradesh itself. Pong Dam oustees certified as such by
the Himachal Pradesh Government on the application of the criteria
B
agreed between the Chief Ministers of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh
would be entitled to allotment as aforestated. It was agreed that each
oustee would cultivate the land personally and the entire holding would be
brought under the plough within a time to be specified under Rules; that
he would not sub-let the holding or any part thereof; that he would reside
in the chak abadi; that he would not be entitled to transfer the land in any C
way for a period of 10 years from the date of allotment; and, in the event
of any breach of these conditions, the land allotted would revert to the
State. In his note dated 3rd July, 1972, wherein he made his recommenda-
tions upon the points left to his decision, the Cabinet Secretary, with great
prescience, observed, "I would wish to emphasise that this is an unique case D
of land acquisition oustees being rehabilitated in a State different from the

-·· one in which the land is acquired. There can be no rules and regulations
in regard to such an adhoc arrangement. The matter can be governed
purely by goodwill between the reservoir land donor State and the irrigat
on beneficiary State and by humanitarian considerations".
E
On 15th September, 1972, based upon what has been set out above,
the Government of Rajasthan made the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment
of Government land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Rajasthan Canal Colony)
Rules, 191-2. The Rules stated that the Government of Rajasthan "shall
reserve land in specific areas of Rajasthan Canal Colony for allotment to F
oustees and the allotment under these rules shall be made only out of this
land". For our purposes, Rules 3, 4 and 6 are relevant, and they read thus:

"(3) An Oustee _land owner fulfilling the conditions of eligibility
specified in such rules (1) and (2), may be allotted for himself and
his family one square, i.e., 15.625 acres, of land under these rules G
by the Allotting Authority.

(4) An Oustee who is only a tenant, landless labourer or an artisan
shall not be entitled to allotment of any agricultural land under
these rules and he shall be entitled only to allotment of a house H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A site for the rehabilitation of the Oustees.

(6) Terms and conditions of allotment :

Allotments of land made under these rules shall be made and s!tall
be deemed to have been made under the following terms and
8 conditions :

1. The allottee, shall pay to the State Government the price for the
allotted land of such scale and in such manner as laid down in rule
7 of these rules.

c 2. Subject to the provisions contained in these rules the Rajasthan
Colonisation (General Colony) condition, 1955 shall apply.

3. Initially an allotment shall be on ghair-khatedari tenure only and
to the allottee no khatedari rights shall accrue in any land so
allotted till the expiry of 20 years from the date of allotment and
D till the full price of the land together with all other dues of the
State Government, if .any, he has been paid by him to the State
Government.

4. During the period of ghair Khatedari tenure, allottee shall not
E have any alienable and transferable rights in the land and shall not
transfer or alienate the land to any other person in any way, e.g.
by sale, mortgage, gift, transfer, lease or otherwise. No transfer or
alienation. of land even in the form of Nokarnama, Muktiarnama,
Tabliknama, Ikranama or the Jike shall be permissible.

F Provided that after the expiry of lO years from the date of taking
over possession by the allottee and subject to allottee having paid
the full price of land allotted to him, the Colonisation Commis-
sioner may, on the application of the allottee after satisfying the
hard and exceptional circumstances exist, allow the allottee to
relinquish the land allotted to him in favour of the State Govern-
G
ment on refund of the price paid by him for the said land.

Provided further that no order under the first proviso allowing
relinquishment shall be passed by the Colonisation Commissioner
without obtaining the previous approval of the State Government.
H In case the State Government refuses to give such approval, the
PRADESH PONG BANDHVIS1HAPIT SAMITI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCH.A,J.] 73

Colonisation Commissioner may allow the allottee to transfer the A
land in favour of any other person.

5. Within six months of the date of possession the allottee shall
have to start living permanently in Chak Abadi of the allotted land .
....,
6. The allottee shall cultivate the allotted land personally and this B
personal cultivation shall exclude any other means of cultivation
except by means of own labour, or by the labour of any other
member of one's family or by hired labour under one's family or
' by hired labour under one's or one's family members personal
supervision and presence.
• c
Provided that in the case of a person who is widow or a minor or
subject to any physical or mental disability or is a member of the
Armed Forces of India or who being a student of an educational
institution recognised by the State Government, is below the age
of 25 years, land shall be deemed to be cultivated personally even D
..
in the absence or such personal supervision .

7. The allottee shall bring the entire culturable allotted land under
plough within a period of 6 months of the date of allotment and
shall fully utilise the irrigation water for cultivation of allotted land.
E
8. Except where the allottee is a member of the Armed Forces of
India, he or a member of his family shall remain personally present
on the allotted land at the time of every annual inspection during
Girdawari.

9. The allottee has to produce his identity card on demand as and F
when demanded by the Colonisation or Revenue Authorities of
the area.

9. (a). An allottee, possession of whose acquired land had not been
taken before the allotment of land to him under these rules, shall
have to produce before the Allotting authority a certificate from G
. the Land Acquisition Officer of Himachal Pradesh Government
regarding handing over of the possession by him of the acquired
land within a period of two months of the harvesting of the crop
standing at the time of issue of the certificate by the Certifying
Authority. H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C:.R.

A 10. In case of any breach of any terms and conditions by the allottee
the allotment of land made to him shall be liable to be cancelled
by the allotting authority or by the Collector and the land shall
revert to the State Government free from all encumbrances and
without any liability of payment of compensation. He shall be
neither liable to any action which may be taken under the
B
provisions of the Act and the Rajasthan Colonisation (General
Colony) condition, 1955."

On 2nd, 3rd and 12th September, 1981, the Chief Ministers of
Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh met and arrived at a Memorandum of
C Understanding. They reviewed the case of the 9169 Pong Dam oustees who
had been allotted lands in the Rajasthan Canal Project area in the light of
the problems experienced by them. As a result of detailed examination and
consideration, it was found that 2594 allottees were continuing to cultivate
the allotted land but their main problem was with regard to the provision
D of infra-structural facilities and amenities. The Chief Minister of Rajasthan
assured his counterpart that every effort would be made to provide essen-
tial basic amenities. There were 689 oustees who had been allotted land
but had sold or otherwise transferred it; it was agreed that these were not
fit cases for review. Jn regard to the remaining cases of 5886 allottees, it
was agreed that Rule 6(7) of the 1972 Rules would be amended to provide
E for the cultivation of 50% ·of the irrigated land in the first year after
commencement of irrigation and the balance 50% before the end of the
second year, while the allotted unirrigated land should be brought under
cultivation before the end of the third year. According to this Rule, oustees
who were allotted land were required to take over physical possession
F within 45 days of receipt of the notice of allotment, but 2289 allotment
orders had been cancelled because the oustees could not take possession
within that period. It was decided that these cases would be reviewed and
the Rules would be amended to increase the period from 45 to 90 days and
that a period of 60 days from the date of publication of the amended Rules
in the Gazette would be provided to eligible persons to submit their
G applications. Rule 6 prescribed various alternative methods through which
the allotted lands could be cultivated by the allottees but the allottee was
not permitted to have the land cultivated by servants, on wages payable in
cash or kind, manager or agent. It was agreed that Rule 6(6) should be
amended to include the methods of cultivation provided for in Section 4(vi) ,
H of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act and to review cases in which allotment
PRADESH PONG BANDHVISTHAPITSAMITI v. U.0.1.[BHARUCHA,J.] 75

orders had been cancelled on this account. In relation to Rule 6(3), and A
this is very relevant, it was agreed that the period for acquisition of
khatedari rights would be reduced from 20 years to 10 years provided that,
before the acquisition of these rights, all dues payable to the State Govern-
ment had been fully discharged and the right to sell the allotted land would
not accrue before the expiry of 20 years from the date of allotment. There
B
were cases in which the lands originally allotted to the oustees were not
situated in the command area of Rajasthan Canal Froject or, being situated
in that area, were not irrigable and cancellations of allotment had been
made. Those cases were agreed to be reviewed and cancellation orders
withdrawn. lt was also agreed that before allotment orders were issued,
encroachment on the allotted lands should first be removed. These amend- c
ments to the 1972 Rules, it was agreed, would be made within three
months,. 'fhe amendments were duly carried out and on 22nd April, 1982,
the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam
Oustees in the Rajasthan Canal Colony) Amendment Rules, 1982, were
published.
D

• On 12th March, 1992, the impugned Rajasthan Colonisation (Allot-
ment and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their
transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) 1992, were published.
Section 3 thereof amended sub rule 3 of Rule 6 and in the proviso thereto,
11
for the expression 20 years 1, the expression "25 years" was substituted.
1 E
Section 4 introduced a new rule, Rule 6-A. Sub-clause (1) thereof may be
reproduced :

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these F
rules, the land reverted to the State Government under sub-rule
. 10 of rule 6 as a result of transfer or alienation of the alloted land
in breach of sub-rule (4) of rule 6 of the rules, may be sold by way
of special allotment to the purported transferee who has been a
bonafide .resident of Rajasthan and has not been involved in an-
tinational activities, and who is also in possession of the land as G
on 31st December, 1991 and continues to be in possession till the
date of reversion, after holding such enquiry as the Collector
deems proper, subject to the ceiling area applicable to the pur-
ported transferee under the Rajasthan Imposition of ceiling on
Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 (Rajasthan Act 11 of 1973). H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A It will be remembered that under the proviso to Rule 6, as it read
after amendment on 22nd April, 1982, pursuant to the agreement between
the Chief Ministers of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh at their meetings
in September 1981, the allottee had no right to sell the land allotted to him
before the expiry of 20 years from the date of allotment. Ten years later
the proviso was unilaterally amended to increase the period of 20 years
B
from the date of allotment to 25 years. The introduction of Section 6-A
entitled to Rajasthan Government to sell "by way of special allotment" lands
which had reverted to the State Government as a result of transfer or
alienation in breach of Rule 6(4) to the purported transferees if they were
bonafide residents of Rajasthan and in possession of the reverted land.
c
Put shortly, the principal ground of the writ petition is that the State
of Rajasthan, having obtained the benefit of the waters impounded in the
Pong Dam, reneges on its obligations to the Pong Dam oustees and
discriminates against them and in favour of the Rajasthanis. The case is
D supported to the hilt by ·the affidavit in reply to the writ petition made on
behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh on 20th August, 1992.

The affidavit states that on account of the construction of the Pong
Dam a total area of 69932.32 hectares was acquired and approximately
30,000 families, scattered in 339 tikkas, were uprooted. Out of these, 16,100
E families were considered eligible for land allotment in Rajasthan. The
affidavit recites the history of meetings between representatives of the
States of Rajasthan & Himachal Pradesh and records that 9195 allotments
had been made upto the year 1980 but, at the time when the affidavit was
filed, "only 2537 allotments remained in-tact while the remaining 6658
F allotments were cancelled by the allotting authorities of Rajasthan under
the harsh application of the allotment rules, 1972". Meetings were held by
the Chief Ministers of Rajasthari & Himachal Pradesh in September 1981
and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 13th September,
1981, which incorporated various steps and measures that were required
to be initiated by the Rajasthan Government in the form of amendment of
G the 1972 Rules in order to facilitate the resettlement of the oustees in
Rajasthan aPd, accordingly, the 1982 amendment was carried out. pursuant .
to the 1992 amendment of the Rules, which was impugned in the writ
petition, the Allotting Department, Rajasthan, had started to issue notices
upon oustee alloltees to appear in the court of S.D.M.R., Raisingh Nagar
H and Suratgarh in District Gangangar. Approximately 4000 oustees had
PRADESH PONG BANDH VISTIIAPIT SAMITI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 77

appeared accordingly. 556 morabbas alloted to the oustee allotees had A
been cancelled for violation of Rules 6(5), 6(6) and 6(7) and in 1373 cases
reversion proceedings in favour of the Rajasthan Government had been
started to enable sale of the lands to the purported transferees. At a
Monitoring Sub-Committee meeting held at New Delhi on 30th October,
1991, it was decided that the cases of illegal transactions should be verified
B
by joint survey, inspection or verification by the Tehsildar, Resettlement &
Rehabilitation, Anupgarh, and the Revenue Tehsildar, Rajasthan, and
lands becoming available upon cancellation thereafter should. be allotted
only to Pong Dam oustees "but the allotting authority Rajasthan has
conducted one sided survey ...... ". An extract of the aforesaid meeting is
reproduced in the affidavit and is instructive : c
"After discussion, it was decided that the cancellation of land
should be proceeded with after joint inspection/verification by the
Tehsildar, Anupgarh under the DCR&R and the Tehsildar of
Rajasthan Government. The land thus available may be allotted D
only to the Pong Dam Oustees and its physical possession delivered
to the genuine oustees authenticated by the DCR&R, SDM
Raisingh Nagar informed that it would only be possible after the
ban was lifted."

The 1972 rules being "very harsh to the allottees", their amendment had E
been agreed to in the Memorandum of understanding signed by the Chief
Ministers as aforementioned. The affidavit states.

"Therefore the insertion/addition of new rule 6(A) in the aforesaid
rules unilaterally by the Rajasthan Government is prejudicial to
the interest of the Pong Dam Oustees. Moreover, detailed enquiry F
as agreed to in the meeting of the Chief Ministers of both the
States held at New Delhi on 9th April, 1992 has not been held and
the oustee allottees have not been afforded due opportunity of
hearing. A notice was issued in the Daily Newspaper "Jansatta"
dated 14th April, 1992 requiring 1980 .Oustees to present themsel- G
ves in the court of SDM, Raising Nagar on 30th April, 1992. The
notices were not personally served upon the oustees."

The affidavit states that

"out of the 30,000 uprooted families and 16,100 eligible oustees H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A families, 9196 oustees were allotted morabbas in Rajasthan upto
the year 1980. O.ut of these 6658 allotments were cancelled by the
allotting Department Rajasthan on the pretext of violation of one
rule or the other of the allotment rules 1972 and only 2537 allot- •
ments remained intact when on the hue and cry of the Pong Dam
Oustees and the intervention of the Beas Project Admn. and the
B
H.P. Government a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived
at in the meeting of Chief Ministers on 13th September, 1981 in
which it was, inter alia, decided to restore all the cancelled Morab-
bas of the Pong Dam Oustees."

C The affidavit also slates,

"Under the provisions of amended rules, 1982, 4734 oustees came
forward for the restoration of their cancelled Morabbas. Out of
these, 4510 cases were accepted for restoration of the cancelled
Morabbas and 224 cases rejected. Out of these 4510 accepted
D cases, the possessions in 3151 cases have been delivered upto 30th
June, 1992 while the possession in remaining 1359 cases are pend-
ing on account of the reasons viz. the allotted Morabbas are under
illegal encroachments of the miscreants, under stay orders of
various courts of Rajasthan, under dispute where same Morabbas
E have been allotted to two different oustees, for want of exchange
where the uncommand land has been allotted, for review of can-
cellations and possessions under phase I and II where the allotting
department has allotted morabbas in papers only but the posses-
sions are still to be delivered ".

F In regard to the impugned 1992 amendment, the affidavit states,

"The Rajasthan Government has amended the allotment Rules
unilaterally which is prejudicial to the interest of the Pong Dan1
Oustees which aims at reverting the allotted lands to the Rajasthan
Government and its subsequent sale to the purported transferee
G against the payment of Rs. 3.00 lacs for command land and Rs.
1.00 lac for uncommand land ........ The amendment in proviso to
sub rule 3 of rule 6 of the allotment rules in the aforesaid notifica-
tion dated 12.3.1992 by the Rajasthan Government under which
the period of Khatedari rights has been increased from 20 years
H to 25 years has been done with a view to gain time for canceling
PRADESH PONG BANDHVIS1HAPITSAMITI v. U.O.l.[BHARUCHA,J.] 79

the remaining morabbas on some pretext because the oustees have A
fulfilled the conditions of the existing rules 6(3) and was due for
khatedari rights".

The affidavit states in regard to the manner in which the newly introduced
·Rule 6-A was being implemented :
B
11
Even the minimum requirements of natural justice are being
denied by the allotting authorities and much irreparable loss has
already been incurred to the Pong Dam Oustecs in respect of the
following :

(i) That the allottees inspite of applications, are not being supplied C
copies of the documents which the purported transferees have
attached alongwith the application in support of their possession
of land.

(ii) The preliminary survey has not been conducted jointly but one
• sided survey has been conducted ignoring the earlier commitments
of joint survey, inspite of the Girdawari entries and deposit of
D

regular instalments by the allottec.

(iii) That no statement of the allottee challenging the comments
have been recorded nor they are allowed to produce witnesses to
E
contradict shown the wrongful possession of the tresspassers.

(iv) The allottees have not been given the copy of the judgment
passed over the reversion of the land for going in appeal under
the provisions of Rule 10 of the Allotment Rules, 1972.
F

- (c) The allotting Department has started cancellation on fictitious
grounds in several cases where the oustees are living in Rajasthan
. for the last 25 years, getting education to their children in
primary/middle schools, have their ration cards, their names ap-
pearing in the voter lists, contested panchayat elections, given
prizes to apprehend Pakistani infiltrators, even then their Murab- G
bas have been cancelled."

The affidavit states,

".............. the allottees have incurred heavy expenditure for the
development of the allotted Murabbas and in paying regular ins- H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. \
~

A talments along with other dues to the Rajasthan Government and
acquired Khatedari rights. Therefore, they cannot be debarred
under the provisions of new rule".

The affidavit concludes,

8 "The rights of the allottees cannot be ignored taking unilateral
decision because the allotments fall in the category of inter-state
settlement and the consent of the Government of India and the
H.P. Government for making new rules is absolutely necessary."

The affidavit in reply to the writ petition on behalf of the State of
c Rajasthan was made on 18th September, 1992. It claims that the petitioners
had:

"made false suggestions and have tried to create malice and
prejudice against the respondent no. 3, State of Rajasthan,and have
also tried to mislead this Hon'ble Court.. ........... The respondent
D no. 3, State of Rajasthan do not dispute the entitlement of the Pong •
Dam Oustees for allotment of land, but under the 1972 Rules all
the eligible and entitled Pong Dam Oustees were granted lands
almost two decades back i.e. during 1973-75. The respondent no.
3, State of Rajasthan, do not wish or propose to oust any of the
E original allottee from his legal entitlement to which the State of
Rajasthan is legally and morally bound. The State of Rajasthan is
seeking and is making sincere efforts to oust and/or regularise the
lands in possession of persons who have been transferred lands
from the oustees in clear violation and contravention to the
provision of the 1972 Rules. Most of the present incumbents are
F persons who have taken over lands lrom the original Pong Dam
Oustees 11 • .,....
This is the burden of the song. The affidavit states that a survey conducted
in December 1991 showed that out of 5076 allottees only 549 were in
G possession of the land alloted, 212 allotments were lying vacant and 4315
allotees had transferred their lands to persons who were not oustees and
these persons were in possession. The affidavit adds,

"As in majority of the cases persons who had taken lands from the
original allottees were in possession and their eviction would have
H raised another hue and cry, a policy decision was taken by the State
PRADESH PONG BANDHVISTIW'IT SAMl"J1 v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA,J.) 81

of Rajasthan that instead of physically evicting these persons, who A
had obtained valid transfers in their favours from the original
allottees, it would be reasonable, just and proper to regularise
these invalid transfers". (Sic).

The affidavit states that representations and grievances were made to the
State of Rajasthan regarding irregularities in the regularisations made B
pursuant to the notification dated 12th March, 1992, that is, the impugned
notification. With a view to meet these grievances the State of Rajasthan,

- .A
by a notification dated 3rd September, 1992, which was issued pursuant to
a decision taken in a meeting between the Revenue Minister of Himachal
Pradesh and the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, issued directions that the
allotting authorities will review all the previous cancellations and pass fresh
orders after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the allottees.
c

The notification of 3rd September, 1992, is annexed to the affidavit,
and makes interesting reading. The minutes of the meeting pursuant to
which this notification is stated to have been issued are not annexed to the D
. affidavit and were not available at the hearing .

The notification of 3rd September, 1992, makes amendments to the
Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land to Pong
Dam Oustees and their transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony
Area) Rules, 1992, and inserts a new Rule 8-AAA therein, which reads E
thus:

"8-AAA Review of Cancellation order on account of breach of Rule
6(4), 6(5) or 6(6) and allotment order under Rule 6-A:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, all the F
orders of cancellation of allotment on account of breach of sub-
rule (4) of Rule (6), except those orders which were passed after
hearing the allottee in person, and the allotment order under Rule
6-A has been passed before the coming into force of this rule shall
be reviewed suo moto by the Allotting Authority and a fresh order G
shall be passed, after making due enquiry with regard to the
genuineness or otherwise of the documents and other relevant
matters, either confirming the order of cancellation under rule
6(10) and the allotment order under rule 6-A or cancelling the
allotment under Rule 6-A and restoring the original allotment
made under these rules. No order shall be passed under this H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A sub-rule without affording an opportunity of being heard to the
original allottee and the purported transferee.

B
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the order
of cancellation of allotment on account of breach of sub-rule (4),
(5) or sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 passed before the coming into force
of this rule and no order has been passed in rule 6-A shall be
reviewed and, after due enquiry, the cancellation order may be
-
withdrawn and an order of restoration of the original allotment
may be passed by the Allotting Authority on an application
presented within 60 days from the date of coming into force of the
Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong
c Dam Oustces and their transferee in the Indira Gandhi Canal
Colony) (Amendment) Rules, (1992, by a person who was pre-
viously allotted land unde~ these rules."

Rule 8-AAA, therefore, itself acknowledges that orders had been passed
D cancelling allotments to oustees under the provisions of Rules 6(4) without
hearing the concerned allottee oustees and without due enquiry where,
thereafter, allotment orders had been made under Rule 6-A in favour of
Rajasthani citizens. It must necessarily follow that this was also the position
where there was no such subsequent order under Rule 6-A and also where
the cancellation of allotment was for purported breach of Rule 6(5) or 6(6).
E Where, after cancellation of allotments under Rule 6(4), allotment orders
had been made under Rule 6-A or cancelling allotments under Rule 6-A
and restoring allotments to the original allotees, the review under rule'
8-AAA is required to be· made suo moto. Where, however, cancellations of
allotments to oustees had been made on account of breach of Rule 6(4), 6(5)
F or 6(6) and no order had been passed under Rule 6-A, the review is required
to be made only if the allottee oustee presents an application within 60 days
from the date of coming into force of the Rule 8-AAA.

The writ petition came up before this Court on 7th September, 1993, when
G counsel for the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh submitted that
a body would be set up by the Governments concerned so that grievances
of high-handed action against oustee allotees could first be considered by
that body and adequate protection given wherever necessary. The writ
petition was adjourned for eight weeks to enable the Union of India and
the Governments of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh to evolve a scheme
H and submit the same to the Court.
PRADESH PONG BANDH VISTHAPITSAMITI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA,J.] 83

The writ petition next reached hearing on 22nd February, 1996. It A
was submitted then that a scheme had been drawn but it had not been
considered by the Court. Pursuant to that scheme committees had been
constituted at State and District levels and they were looking into grievan-
ces. The court directed the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh to
state on affidavit that the scheme had, in fact, been implemented and State B
and District level committees formed. The affidavits had also to state what
work had been done by the committees since their constitution.

Pursuant to the order dated 22nd February, 1996, the State of
Himachal Pradesh filed two affidavits, the first dated 10th Apri~ 1996, and
the second dated 30th May, 1996. In the first affidavit it was stated that a C
State Level Committee meeting had been held to provide basic amenities
like roads, drinking water, schools, dispensaries, etc. in the areas where
oustees had been allotted morabbas in the manner provided to residents
of Rajasthan. It was agreed to re-examine such cases of cancellations as
had been decided on the basis of forged documents. It was agreed not to D
cancel allotments based upon the provision relating to self cultivation or
residence where the legal heirs of deceased allottees serving in the State
or Central Governments were involved and to review such cases where
morabbas had been cancelled. The Rajasthan Government had agreed that
the period of cultivation would commence only after making provision for
irrigation in the areas where allotments were made. There were 1559 fresh E
applications of oustees according to the Memorandum of understanding of
12th September, 1981. The Himachal Pradesh Government had scrutinised
these applications and 965 applications had been forwarded to the Rajas-
than Government for consideration. The remaining 594 applications were
under process. The affidavit stated that District Level Committee meetings F
had been held but gave no details

The seco11d affidavit on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh
made reference to the earlier affidavit dated 10th April, 1996 and stated,

"The assurances and decisions made by the Rajasthan Government
G
as indicated in paras 3 to 10 earlier have not beer. practically
implemented. The matter stated in paras 5 to 7 of the affidavit
dated l.Oth April, 1996 requires basic amendments in Rajasthan
Colontsation Rules, 1972, but no such amendments have been
incorporated in the Rules as no copy of the Notilication/Amend- H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A ment has been supplied to the State of Himachal Pradesh by the
Rajasthan Government. In addition to the facts stated in paras 3
and 4 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the basic amenities, like
roads, drinking water, school etc. have not been provided in most
of the areas where allotments have been made to the Pong Dam
Oustees in Phase II by Rajasthan Government."
B
There were, the affidavit stated, :

"1935 cases of 8-AAA(l) category, out of which only 694 cases
were disposed of before 16.10.1993 but thereafter only 142 cases
c have been decided and 1,099 cases are still pending with the
Rajasthan Government. There were 381 cases of 8-AAA(II)
category, out of which 31 were disposed of before 16th October,
1993, but thereafter 69 cases had been decided and 291 cases are
still pending. Most of the oustees against whom the case'; were
previously decided by the Revenue courts of Rajasthan under Rule
D 6-A have filed Review/Appeal applications in the competent courts
of Rajasthan which are still pending for decision. The Pong Dam
Oustees are attending various courts for getting justice and they
have attended these courts 12/15 times for the last two and a half
years which has caused a lot of running expenditure and harass-
E ment too. The Rajasthan Government, thus, is not seriously inter-
ested in the speedy disposal of such cases. On the basis of the
above facts, there is an urgent need for the Government of Rajas-
than to speed up disposal of the pending cases so that the oustees
do not face further harassment.

F xxx xxx xxx

That there are 1,559 fresh applications of the Pong Dam oustees
pending for allotment ofland in Rajasthan Canal area. Under Rule
3(1) of the Rajasthan Canal Colony Rules, che Government of
Rajasthan is required to reserve land for allotment, but till date
G no land has been reserved by th~ Government of Rajasthan despite
the assurances given in the inter-State Meeting held on 13.10.1995
at New Delhi. The Government of Rajasthan is thus not adhering
to the mandatory provisions as laid under the Rules.

H That the Rajasthan Government is charging higher rate of Rs.
PRADESH PONG BANDH YISTIIAPIT SAMITI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 85

52,500 per square of land measuring 15.625 acres in Phase II from A
the allottees in whose favour the alternative allotments have been
made on review of their earlier decision of cancellation of the land
under Rule 8-A. ...... and such a higher charging of the price is not
justified."

The State of Rajasthan filed an affidavit dated 15th April, 1996, B
pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22nd February, 1996. In para 6
of the affidavit, with reference to the work done by the District Level
Committee, Sri Ganganagar, it was stated :

"There are total 1935 cases were pending under Section B-AAA(l) C
of 1954 Act, in which cases allottees transferred the land by
agreement to sale. The Competent Authority had taken up 1935
cases for reviewing the cases suo moto and conduct inquiry with
regard to the genuineness of such transfer of land by the allottees.
Till 16.10.93 total number of 694 cases were disposed of and during
the period of 17.10.93 to 31.03.96, 142 cases were disposed of. D
Remaining 1099 cases are still pending with Competent Authority
in which the inquiries are going on. A direction has also been issued
by the District Level Committee to Competent Authorities to dis-
pose of the aforesaid pending cases as expeditiously as possible.
E
(ii) The Competent Authority had received 381 applications under
Section 8-AAA of 1954 Act in which cases allotments to the
allottees were cancelled due to violation of the Allotment Rules.
Out of 381 cases till 16.10.1993, 31 cases were disposed of and from
17.10.93 till 31.03.96, 69 cases were disposed of. Remaining 281 cases
were pending for disposal before the competent authority. The F
District Level Committee had also given specific direction to the
Competent Authority to dispose of pending cases .expeditiously.

xxx xxx xxx

There were total number of 302 cases pending before Competent G
Authority for giving possession of the land to the allottees which
could not be given due to non-availability of command area, etc.
Out of these 302 cases till 19.10.93, possession has been given to
5 persons and from 17.10.93 till 31.03.96, 11 persons were given
possession of land by re-allotment in the command area. The H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A District Level Committee had given direction to the Coinpetent
Authority for verification of the command land and for giving
earliest possession of the remaining 286 allottees."

With reference to the work done by the District Level Committee, Bikaner
and Jaisalmer, it was stated that 886 oustees had been allotted lands. Out
B of these, in 158 cases re-allotments were made as there were no irrigation
facilities in the lands originally allotted and in 31 cases the matter of
re-allotment of land was pending before the Competent Authority. The
State Level Committee, the affidavit stated, had taken a decision to give to
. the families of oustees, in the second phases, the following facilities :
c (i) Free ration for two years;

(ii) A grant of Rs. 8,000 per hectar other their Joan woul.d be given
to each family for land leveling.

(iii) A grant of Rs. 8,400 would be given for making houses to each
D Oustee family.

(iv) Interest free loan of Rs. 5,000 in two instalment would be given
to each Oustees family."

It may be noted that the Stale of Rajasthan has not controverted the
E
allegations made against it in the affidavits of the Slate of Himachal
Pradesh in reply to the writ petition and pursuant to the order dated 22nd
February, 1996.

Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan,
F submitted that the Beas waters would have been lost to the country had
the Pong Dam not been constructed. The submission appears to us to be
a non-sequitur in the context of the writ petition. The dam need not have
been built, but· it was built. The State of Rajasthan is the predominant
beneficiary of the waters impounded by it. Residents of the State of
Himachal Pradesh were ousted from their lands by the impounding of the
G waters. The State of Rajasthan agreed with the State of Himachal Pradesh
to re-settle them. Twenty-four years later they are not all settled. Irrigable
land, water, roads, schools and dispensaries are not available to all oustees
allotted land in the State of Rajasthan. Small wonder that some may have
deserted their allotments and some may have transferred them for such
H compensation as they could get and returned to their native State. This
PRADESH PONG 13ANDH VISTIIAPIT SAMH1 v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA J.] 87

really answers Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta's principal argument that the oustee A
allottees were found lo have in validly transferred their allotments or left
them vacant, but we shall presently have more to say about it. Mr. Arunesh-
war Gupta submitted that the averment in the affidavit of the State of
Rajasthan in reply to the writ petition that all eligible oustees had been
allotted land in 1973-1975 had not been denied. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta
B
overlooks the averments in the affidavit of the State of Rajasthan itself,

-••
made in reply to the court's order dated 22nd February, 1996. It is stated
in that affidavit, which is dated 15th April, 1996, that 302 cases were
pending where possession of land to allottees "could not be given due to
non-availability of the command area, etc. Out of these 302 cases till
16.10.93 possession has been given to 5 persons and from 17.10.93 till C
31.3.96 11 persons were given possession of land by re-allotment in the
command area". It is also stated in that affidavit that out of 189 other cases,
re-allotment had to be n1ade in 158 cases as there were no irrigation
facilities on the allotted land and the remaining 31 cases were still pending
re-allotment.
D
Allotment of the lands took place in 1973-75; this is the State of
Rajastlzan's case. That the allollees would not be able to sell the land
allotted to them for a period of 20 years after allotment was a stipulation
agreed to between the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. It was
upon that stipulation that the allottees were allotted the land and paid its E
price. When the 20 years period was nearing completion in 1992 the State
of Rajasthan unilaterally increased the period by 5 years by amending the
proviso to Rule 6(3). The State of Rajasthan could not change unilaterally
what was the subject of agreement as aforestated; besides, the right to sell
the land after 20. years vested in the allottee and could not be divested. As F
will become clear, there is substance in the plea of the State of Himaehal
Pradesh that the period had been increased with a view to gain time to
cancel allotments on the pretext that the oustees had breached one or other
condition of allotment and that the amendment is a ma/a fide exercise of
power. Rule 6-A, newly introduced in 1992, needs to be considered in a
\vider context. Suffice it to say now that it is bad because the land reserved G
for oustees n1ust go, on reversion to the State of Rajasthan, to such oustees
as remained un-settled.

That the provisions of Rules 6(4), (5) and (6) have been mis-used has been
indicated in Rule 8-AAA itself and in the affidavit of the State of Rajasthan H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A filed pursuant to the order of 22nd February, 1996; Rule 8-AAA provides
for the review of all orders of cancellation under Rule 6(4) where, sub·
sequently, order under Rule 8-AAA had been issued "except thos orders
which were passed after hearing the allottee in person". It had been
decided in 1992, as the affidavit of the State of Rajasthan shows, to
B 'regularise the possession of the Rajasthanis who were in possession of
lands allotted to oustees. It was for that purpose that Section 6-A was then
incorporated. Rule 8-AAA was required to be introduced within a few
months thereafter because the State of Himachal Pradesh complained of
its blatant misuse and a review of cancellations was agreed to. Rule 8-AAA
states, as already noted, that a review was required because the oustee
C allottees had been deprived of allotments in breach of the provisions of
natural justice. The number of cases where this happened because of
alleged breach of Rule 6(4) and subsequent application of Ruic 6-A was
1935. Out of these, 836 cases had been disposed of by 31st March, 1996.
What the consequence of such disposal was is not stated in the affidavit of
the State of Rajasthan. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta could not tell us either, but,
D according to him, no oustee allottee could have been put back in possession
because of a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. He did not cite the
judgment nor give the number or title of the case. For alleged breaches of
Rules 6(5) and 6(6) the position is similar. The affidavit of the petitioners
dated 28th June, 1996, states that 2063 allotments were cancelled upon the
E insertion into the Rules of Rule 6A; that, upon review, 843 cancellation
orders were 'affirmed and only 94 cases were decided in favour of oustee
allottees; and that in 1126 cases review is pending.

Moreover, where Rule 6-A was applied and a Rajasthani was in possession,
the review under Rule 8-AAA was to be made suo motu; otherwise, the
F oustee allottee whose allotment had been cancelled by the application of
Rules 6(4), (5) and (6) was required to make an application for review
within 60 days of Rule 8-AAA coming into force. It is reasonable to assume
that upon dispossession the oustee allottee would have retreated to his
native State of Hirnachal Pradesh. It is manifestly absurd to expect him to
read the Rajasthan Gazette and make a review application under the
G provisions of Rule 8-AAA within 60 days of its publication. The provision
for review in Rule 8-AAA where Rule 6-A has not been applied is illusory;
the agreement between the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh in
this behalf is not honoured.

H This is not to suggest that an allottee would not have transferred the
PRADESH PONG BANDHVISUIAPITSAMITI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 89

allotted land. He may have, but such cases need inquiry because the A
possibility of trespass, coercion and intimidation, as suggested by the
affidavit of the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be ruled out. Having
regard to their track record, the revenue authorities of Rajasthan cannot
~.

be entrusted with the task.

We have drawn attention to the broad sweep of the prayers of the
B
writ petition. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta has also invited us to give appropriate
directions. We think that directions are necessary if the oustees are lo get
their due; we are left in no doubt that the Stale of Rajasthan has dis-
favoured them and favoured the Rajasthani and has made rules and
implemented them with that in mind. c
The notification dated 12th March, 1992 amending the Rajasthan
Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the
Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972, and, consequently, the substitu-
tion of 25 years for 20 years in the proviso to Rule 6(3) and the introduction D
of Rule 6-A are quashed and set aside.

The Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court shall nominate, within
6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, one or more District Judges for
the purpose now set out. The notion of regularising the Rajasthanis in
occupation of lands allotted to oustees saw the light of the day in 1992. E
Therefore, the cases of all cancellations of allotments to oustees sub-
sequent to 1st January, 1992, shall be reviewed by the District Judge. Notice
that he shall be so doing shall be given to the oustee allottees concerned
personally, by registered post at the last known address and through the
agency of the Himachal Pradesh Government. Public notice that all such F
cases are to be reviewed by the District Judge shall be published in two
newspapers printed in the vernacular and having circulation in Himachal
Pradesh, particularly in the Kangra region; also in two newspapers printed
in Hindi and having circulation in Rajasthan, particularly in the Indira
Gandhi c'anal Colony area. Costs in regard to the individual and public
notices shall be borne by the State of Rajasthan. For the purpose of such G
review the State of Rajasthan shall produce before the District Judge the
entire record pertaining to each such allotment and cancellation. Even
though the oustee allottee concerned may not appear, the District Judge
shall review his case. Where the District Judge finds that an oustee allottee
has committed a breach that invites the forfeiture of his land, he shall so H

•
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A record. Where the District Judge finds to the contrary, whether or not !he
oustee allottee appears, he shall so record. The District Judge shall also
record, should he so find, that the oustee allottee was forced to leave the
land because of lack of irrigation or other essential facilities such as water,
roads, schools and medical assistance and/or because of coercion, intimida-
tion or trespass. The District Judge shall send his reports to the committee
B
now mentioned. The reports shall be binding upon the oustee allottees and
the State of Rajasthan. The District Judge shall complete the task allotted
to him as soon as is reasonably possible and, in any event, within 18 months
of begining it.

C A committee shall be constituted by the Union of India (the 1st
respondent) within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order which shall
have the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Union of India, as its
Chairman and the Secretaries of the appropriate Ministries in the States
of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh as its members. The committee shall
D be responsible for the settlement in the command area of the Indira
Gandhi Canal Colony in Rajasthan of all oustees who have secured certifi- .
cates of eligibility in that behalf from the State of Himachal Pradesh, except
those who, having been allotted land, have been found by the District Judge
aforementioned to have forfeited it, provided that they were not forced to
E leave the land because of lack of irrigation or other essential facilities such
as water, roads, schools and m~dical assistance and/or because of coercion,
intimidation or trespass. Such land only shall revert to the State of Rajas-
than and it shall be utilised for the purpose of allotment to oustces not yet
settled. The committee shall ensure that the recommendations of the
District Judge are carried out and, where so recommended, the original
F oustee allottee shall be put back in possession of the land allotted to him.
In the event that for some supervening reason this cannot be done, it shall
be the obligation of the State of Rajasthan to make available an equivalent
extent of irrigable land in the said command area for being allotted lo him.
The oustee allottee shall not be liable to make any additional payment in
G either event. Where, on re-settlement of oustees, additional monies have
already been collected by the State of Rajasthan, they shall be refunded.
The committee shall ensure that essential facilities such as water, roads,
schools and dispensaries are available to the oustee allottees. The direc-
tions of the committee in regard to all matters entrusted by this order to
H it and all its consequential or incidental directions shall be binding on the
PRADESH PONG BANDH V!S1l!APIT SAMl11 v. U.0.1. [l.lHARUCl!A, J.j 91

State of Rajasthan. A
We <lo not presume to impose a time limit on the committee, for its
members will share our dismay that some 24 years on many oustees remain
unsettled.

In its affidavit dated 18th September, 1992, the State of Rajasthan B
has stated that it had apprehended a hue and cry if the Rajasthanis who
had taken lands from the allottees were evicted. Whatever the hue and cry
that might arise as a result of having to dispossess Rajasthanis from lands
allotted to oustccs shall be the direct consequence of the deeds of the State
of Rajasthan upon which we have adversely commented. It shall be the duty
of the State of Rajasthan lo enforce the law, maintain order and ensure
c
that the oustee allottec, his family and his belongings arc un-harmed.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The State of Ra.iasthan shall
pay to the petitioners the costs of the writ petition quantified at Rs. 25,000
(Rupees twenty five thousand). D
S.M. Petition allowed.

---
••'