STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. versus SHRI PURKHA RAM AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 23-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
v. 
SHRI PURKHA RAM AND ANR. , 
FEBRUARY 23, 1994 
(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. 
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. 
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 
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 
·' I 
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. 
With 
Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 1988. 
From the judgment and Order dated 11.3.86 of the Rajasthan High 
F 
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 & 
B 
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. 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.