TMI Blog1977 (7) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e resumption of 'Muafi' land w. e. f. 1-1-1959, though the deity was the Muafi holder, yet Bhinya Ram got an order in his favour from the Collector, Sriganganagar on 13-10-1959 that the land in question was his personal property under Section 23 (2) of the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. It was then entered as his khatedari land. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, namely; Smt. Rami Devi W/o Shri Sheo Karan and Shri Sitaram S/o Sheo Karan purchased certain lands in tehsil Pilibanga in 7 PBN. These lands were reserved for purposes of orchard and Mandi. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were granted lands in exchange in 7 PBN itself. Deceased Bhinyaram also applied for exchange of land for the aforesaid 'Muafi' and 'Lagani' lands. Exchange was allowed to him and the said former 'Muafi' land was put to auction and purchased by the petitioner No. 8 Balbir Singh. The said exchanges were sanctioned by the Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Hanumangarh. on 20-4-1961. 3. The lands so sold by auction to the petitioner No. 8 were in fact in possession of one Ladhuram who had filed a suit in the court of the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh against Bhinyara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners Nos. 1 to 8 pray that the order of the Ministers dated 21-3-1970 and 26-3-1971 be quashed on the ground that the orders of the Ministers were made mala fide, without any jurisdiction and without hearing the petitioners. Both the Ministers namely; Manphool Singh and Brij Prakash Goyal had a bias and were disqualified from deciding the matter, Shri Goyal was the counsel for Ladhuram in the revenue suit and wanted to oblige his former client. Shri Manphoolsingh was similarly biased because he had at one stage espoused the cause of Ladhuram when he was a member of the Legislative Assembly. 6. In dealing with the preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon Chandmal's case (AIR 1968 Raj 20), while the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Nathmal v. Commissioner Civil Supplies, 1951 Raj LW 467 and upon Jas Raj v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 WLN 589 : (AIR 1977 Raj 150). In Nathmal's case two persons on whom two different orders were passed had joined in one petition. The Division Bench saw no objection to this course when the case of the two persons was exactly the same. But this case is no more valid as in 1964, Sub-rule (4) was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took possession of the lands. Later on, the Government withdrew the notification releasing the lands. The petitioners in a joint petition prayed for quashing of the order of withdrawal of release of the lands. An objection was raised, in view of the Chandmal's case (AIR 1968 Raj 20) that a joint petition by all the petitioners was not maintainable as the causes of action were separate. This objection was rejected by Sachar J. holding that the petitioners community of interest and cause of action arose when the Government directed to release all the lands of the petitioners by a common order. Their community of interest further continued when the Government issued the impugned notification purporting to rescind the earlier order. The claim of the petitioners in short was that the Government having passed an order of release from acquisition, had no jurisdiction to rescind the same by the subsequent order. The petitioners are not raising any separate claim or asking for any separate determination of points with which one may be interested and the other may not be. They were aggrieved by the same common order and the cause of action was thus the same. The learned Judge did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vour of Balbir Singh be cancelled. (2) The land which was allotted to deceased Bhinya Ram in exchange of the aforesaid 'Muafi' land shall be declared to be Government property and Bhinya Ram shall be evicted therefrom. (3) An enquiry shall be made and opinion of the Collector obtained in respect of the remaining exchange of land except the land which has been allotted in exchange of the land brought under reservation for Mandi etc. 11. Now, it is obvious that the rights of all petitioners are different, they are affected in different ways, even though the order is common. Interests of Balbir Singh are quite distinct from the interests of the first 7 petitioners. Even amongst them, the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 who were allotted land in exchange on account of their lands having been reserved do not have any cause of action at all. The impugned order does not affect them adversely at all. In respect of the exchange allowed for Non-Muafi lands of Bhinya Ram, only an enquiry has been directed by the State Government. It is, therefore, a clear case of misjoinder of the parties and causes of action, the state of facts in case of the three categories of the petitioners bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
