Holding

Rule 8(1)(a) does not apply to allotments governed by Rule 8(1)(b); therefore, the government cannot revise the price already fixed and paid under Rule 23.

Summary

The case involved displaced persons from the Bhakra Nangal Dam who were rehabilitated in the Rajasthan Canal Colony and allotted land under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 and the 1967 Rules, with payment required as per Rule 23, which they duly made. In 1984 the government issued notices under the 1975 Rules, specifically Rule 4, demanding payment of the prevailing market price for 25 bighas and four times that price for any excess land. The respondents challenged these demands, and the Rajasthan High Court quashed them, holding that the government had no power to reopen the price. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Rule 8(1)(a) of the 1967 Rules, which allows special terms and conditions, also applied to allotments covered by Rule 8(1)(b). The Court held that Rule 8(1)(a) applies prospectively only to future allotments and does not bind those under Rule 8(1)(b); consequently, the respondents’ liability is limited to the price fixed in Rule 23, which has already been paid. Accordingly, the High Court’s order was affirmed and the appeals dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the government can reopen the price of land allotted under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 and the 1967 Rules by invoking Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules.
Whether Rule 8(1)(a) of the 1967 Rules applies to allotments covered by Rule 8(1)(b) and thus imposes additional special terms and conditions on the displaced persons.

Legislation cited

Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954s. 15-A
Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1967s. Rule 23, s. Rule 8(1)(a), s. Rule 8(1)(b)
Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975s. Rule 4

Subjects

Land allotmentPrice revisionGovernment landRajasthan Colonisation ActDisplaced personsRule 8(1)Rule 23Rule 4Permanent allotmentKhatedari rights

Judgment

A STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
v.
SHRI PURKHA RAM AND ANR. ,

FEBRUARY 23, 1994
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Rajasd1an Colonisation Act, 1954: R.C. (RC.P. Government Land Al-
lotment and Sale) Rules, 1967: Rules 8(1) (a), B(l)(b) a'!d 23.

c Rajc:;than Colonisation (Allotment and sale of Government Land
in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Are.1) Rule>; 1975 : Rule 4 Displaced
persons of Bhakhra Dam-Rehabilitation of-Allotment of lantf-Payment
of lai:id by allottees-Govemment whether has power to re-open the
price.
D
Respondents, displaced persons under the Bhakra, Nangal Dam, were
rehabilitated in the Rajasthan Canal Produce Area. Each or them was ~
allotted SO Blghas ofland. Under the prmisions of Rajasthan Colonisation
Act, 1954 read with R.C. (R.C.P. Go,•emment Land Allotment and Sale)
Rules 1967, the allotment of land was on permanent basis and was to be
E deemed to have been made under the 11967 Rules. Further, the allotees were
enjoined to pay the price of the land at the rates provided for in Rule 23.

Respondents made payment as contemplated under Rule 23. How·
ever, subsequently notices were issue1:l to them under Rule 4 of the Rajas-
F than Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the
·' I
Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rul1es, 1975 demanding payment at the
prevailing prices for 25 Bigbas and four times the price fixed for 25 Bighas
lands In excess of 25 Bighas. They challenged the demands before the High
Court which quashed the notices holding that the Government had no
G power to re-open the price.

In appeals to this Court It was contended on behalf of the State that
since Rule 8(1)(a) of the 1967 Rules expressly postulated that subject to
special conditions and terms of the :ollotment ~o be made' would apply to
the persons covered by Rule S(l)(b), the respondents were, bound to pay
H the price of the land as demanded.
130
STATE v. PUlUCHARAM 131

Dismissing the ar~ls, this Court A
HELD: 1. the High Court Is right In quashing the demands. A
reading of the Rule 8(1) (a) or 1967 Rules does not warrant an interpreta-
tion that the displaced persons under Bhakra Nangal Project who come
under Rule 8(1) (b) are also bound by the special terms and conditions
enumerated in Rule 8(1) (11) and that, therefore, they are bound to pay the B
demands as Issued In the Impugned notice•. (135-D·H]

2. Rule 8(1) (a) would prospectively apply Independently to the
future allotees, be they displaced persons or any person applying for
allotment. They alone would be bound by the terms and conditions. If the C
Rules making authority intended the operation or Rule 8(1) (a) to apply
to the persons covered by Rule 8(1) (b), suitable language would have been
employed in Rule 8(1) (b) to make them liable to te special terms and
conditions. From Rule 8(1) (b) itself, no such Indication is discernible.
Unfortunately, no such language was there even to impliedly so suggest.
On the other band, it is sa.ld expressly that the allottees shall be liable to D
the payment of price of such land at the rates provided for in Rule 23'.
Thereby, their liability Is only with reference to the rates fixed under Rule
23. Since the respondents have paid the price r.i1ed under Rule 23, there
is no power for the Government to revise the price already fixed and paid.
[135·E·G] E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1559 of
1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.86 <if the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.Civil Spl. A. No. 572 of 1986.
F
With

Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 1988.

From the judgment and Order dated 11.3.86 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B. Civil Spl. A. No. 660 of 1986. G
With

Civil Appeal No. 1783-1789 of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.86, 31.10.86, 24.3.87, 5.1.87, H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) 2 S.C.R.

A 1.9.86 & 31.10.86 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C.Spl.A.Nos.941 &
981/86, 1159/86, 1179/86, 1278, 934, 1177 of 1986.

B.D. Sharma and G. Prakash for the Appellants.

S.B. Sanyal, S.K. Bisaria and Surya Kant for the Respondents.
B
The following Order of the Coutt was delivered:

Leave granted in Special Leave JPetitions.

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the
C Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Special Appeal
No. 660 of 1986 and batch dated Marc:h 11, 1986. The facts which lie in a
short compass, are stated as under:

The displaced persons under the Bhakra Nangal Dam were
rehabilitated in Rajasthan Canal Produce area now known as Indira
D Gandhi Nebar Project in Rajasthan. From 1961 to 1967, various persons
have been rehabilitated thereof. 50 Bighas of land was allotted to each
respondent in the appeal by proceedings dated May 16, 1961. Thereafter
proceedings were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation,
Rajasthan on December 28, 1965 that in compliance of the Commissioner,
Colonisation order of the above date, the allotment to the landlords
E farmers of the Bhakra Project in the R.C.P, Areawason the terms and
conditions mentioned thereunder. Condition Nos.1 and 2 are relevant for
the purpose of these cases: .

"Co11ditio11 110. l - That the alkittee will be bound by the provisions
of Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 and the rules thereunder as
F amended from time to in future.

Co11ditio11 110. 2 • That the value of the land will be fixed by the
State Government and it will be the responsibility of the allottce
to make timely 'payment and the allouee will also be responsible
to pay in time the instalment of payment fixed by the State Govern-
G
ment."

Thereafter R.c: (R.C.P. Government Land Allotm~nt and Sale) Rules,
1967 for short the Rules were made c:xercising the power under Rule 28
of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (Act No. 27of1954), for short the
H Act. Rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules, provides thus :

. 'i;
STATE v. PURKHARAM 133

"'8(1)(b) All allotments of Government iand made in the Rajasthan A
Cannal Project area before the commencement of these rules on
a permanent basis, irrespective of the area allotted to each allottee,
shall be deemed to a have been made under these rules and the
allottee shall be liable to the payment of price of such land at the
rates provided for in rule 23.' B

>· Rule 23 prescribes the classification of the ·soil, price per bighas· and price
• per Murabba of 25 Bighas which is described as a unit as under:

'23. Scales of price to be charged for different classes of land and C
the mode of payment • (1) Following shall be scales of price which
may be charged for Government lands allotted under these rules
for which various soil classes have been sanctioned by the Collector
as defined in the Act.
D
SI. Price per Murabba
Class of soil Price per Bighas
No. of 25 Bighas
1. Nali Canal Rs. 800.00 Rs. 20,000.00
2. Light Loam Rs. 675.00 Rs. 16,875.00
3. Sandy Loam Rs. 500.00 Rs. 12,500.00 E
4. Uncommand Lands Rs. 150.00 Rs. 3,750.00

2. No. betterment fee shall be charged on Government lands
allotted at above prices.
F
2. In case land allotted as uncommand becomes cammand at any
subsquent time, the price payable will be (the market price
prevalent at the time) for command land and the allottee shall be
liable to pay the deficiency in price occasioned thereby and in case
any land sold as command is declared as uncommand by the G
Irrigation Department before its price is fully paid up the amount
paid towards the payment of the price thereof as command land,
will be adjusted towards the price and instalments payable for it
as uncommand land and any amount paid in excess thereof will be
refunded to the allottee. H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 2 S.C.R.

A 4. Allottees other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
shall pay 12112% of the price and those belonging to Lhe Scheduled
Castes(fribes shall pay 5% of the price at the time c,f allotment
and the residuary amount shall be paid in ten equal instalments as
indicated below in respect each square of 25 bighas commenceing
B from the year in which water is released for the irrigation of the
allotted Ian·'.'

A reading of the said provisions of 1:he Act and Rule S(l)(b) clearly
indicates that the effect of the allotme11t made in favour of the displaced
C persons from Bhakra Nangal Project area and rehabilitated in Rajasthan
Canal Porject area was that the allotment was on permanent basis irrespec-
tive of the area allotted to each of the allottes. They shall be deemed to
have been allotted under the Rules. The allottee was enjoined to pay the
price of the land at the rate provided in Rule 23. It is an admitted case
D that the respondents did make payment as contemplated under Rule 23.

But in the year 1984 steps have lbeen taken purporting to be under 1
r
Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment) and Sale of Government Land in the
Rajasthan Canal Colony Area Rules, 1975 and in particular Rule 4 thereo~
E ditecting the respondents to pay prevailing current price for 25 bighas and
four times the'price fixed for 25 bighas, lands in excess of 25 bighas. The
notice in that behalf was issued on June 15, 1984. Calling that Rule in
question the respondents filed the writ ]petitions in the High Court. Persons
similarly situated also filed several wirit petitions. As stated earlier, the
High Court held that the Government has no power to reopen the price,
F which was alteady settled by exercising the power under Rule 4 of 1975
Rules. Accordingly, .the demands were quashed. Thus these appeals by
special leave.

Shri B.D. Sharma, learned couns1:l appearing for the State contended
G that when the allotment was deemed to be under the Rules, when Rule
8(1)(a) of 1967 ltules expressly postutates that subject to special conditions
and terms of the allotment 'to be made' would apply to the persons covered
by Rule S(l)(b). Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the present
current price for ?.S bighas of land and 4 times price fixed for the excess
H lands. We find no force in the contention. Rule S(l)(a) reads thus:

·1
'
'
-· .. ·
STATE v. PURKHARAM 135

"8(1)(a) Subject to the provisions contained in the Act, these rules A
and the terms and conditions specified in the Rajasthan Colonisa-
tion (General Colony) Conditions 1955, allotments of Government
lands under these rules shall be on a permanent basis, the allottees
being eligible ultimately to the conferment of Khatedari rigbts
subject, however, to special terms and conditions which migbt B
hereafter be imposed by the Government.'

A reading of this rule would clearly show that its operation is
prospective subject to the provisions contained in the Act, rules and special
terms and conditions specified in the Rajasthan Colonisation (General C
Colony) Conditions 1955, allotments of Gover~"'el<'t hnds under these
Rules shall be on permanent basis, the 4llottees would be eligible ultimately
to the conferment of the Khatedori rights subject, however, to special terms
and conditions which might hereafter be imposd by the Government would
be applicable and the allottees are bound by them. On the word 'hereafter', D
emphasis was laid by Shri B.D. Sharma to contend that the allottees the
displaced persons under Bhakra l~ugal Project who would come under
Rule S(l)(b) are also bound by the special terms and conditions
enumerated in Rule S(l)(a) and that, therefore, they are bound to pay the
demands as issued in the impugned notice. A reading of the Rule does not E
warrant such an interpretation. Rule S(l)(a) would prospectively apply
independently to the future allottees, be they displaced persons or any
person applying for allotment. They alone would be bound by the terms
and conditions. If the Rule making authority intended the operation of
Rule S(l)(a) to apply to the persons covered by Rule S(l)(b), suitable F
language would have been employed in Rule S(l)(b) to make them liable
to the special terms and conditions. We find no such language. From Rule
S(l)(b) itsel~ no such indication is discernible. Unfortunately, no such
language was there even to impliedly so suggesi. On the other hand, it is
said expressly that 'the allottee shall be liable to the payment of price of
such land at the rates provided for in rule 23', Thereby, their liability is G
only with reference to the rates fixed under Rule 23, As admittedly, the
respondents have paid the price fixed under Rule 23, there is no power for
the Government to revise the price already fixed and paid. Accordingly,
we are of the view that the High Court is rigbt in quashing the dema11ds.
We do not find any ground warranting interference. Though Shri Sharma H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 2 S.C.R.

A seeks to contend about the effect of Section 15-A ofthe Rajasthan Tenancy
Act on the nature of the right acquired by the respondents, that was not
in dispute either before the High Court nor it arises in thei;i: cases.

We express no opinion on that.

B The appeals are dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.

t
,>

•