The Collector numberified to the cultivators of these companyditions and invited them to submit the applications for permanent allotment At that juncture, the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court questioning the power of the Collector to fix the market price.
The ceiling area of agricultural lands was 25 bighas of irrigated lands and 50 bighas of unirrigated lands.
The Collector was, therefore, devoid of power to fix the revised prices at the prevailing market rate.
Such of those cultivators who have been in possession between the period from 1953 to 1960 became eligible for allotment of lands on permanent basis on paying the prices determined under Rule 7 thereof.
The learned companynsel for the respondents companytended in the High Court that having fixed the scales of price under rule 7, at which the land allotted would be charged under the rules through G.S.R. 20 dated June 4, 1981, the Government had numberfurther power under Rule 9 to fix the market value once again.
Thus these appeals by special leave.
85/88 and batch dated September 27,1988 held that the Collector has numberpower to fix the revised market rate, de hors Rule 7.
1995 2 SCR 1008 The following Order of the Court was delivered Leave granted.
He stated therein that the Government in the aforesaid order have decided for allotment and regularisation of the land, in excess of the allotment limit on the terms and companyditions enumerated thereunder, relevant term is as under ALLOTMENT LIMIT Under the aforementioned 1956 Rules, after the permanent allotment has been made, the surplus land would be allotted to the temporary cultivation lease holders to the extent of ceiling limit at the market rate and after such allotment has been made and the land is surplus, then that land would be allotted to his major sons deeming them as a separate unit to the extent of ceiling limit at the market rate.
That companytention found favour with the High Court of Rajasthan and the Division Bench in W.P. No.
Other terms and companyditions are number relevant for the purpose of these cases and hence omitted.
Therefore, the action of the Collector was held to be without authority of law and the Collectors numberice was, therefore, quashed.
