LexPRADESH PONG BANDH VISTHAPIT SAMIT!, RAJASTHAN versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
-
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
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.
Construction or the Pong Dam on the Reas River began in 1960.
E
F
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.
B
On March 12, 1992 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 ('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.
D
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
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.
F
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.
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 ColonisationExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.