Reference made to Board of Revenue v. . — 1960 DIGILAW 138 (RAJ)

This case has come up before me because there was a difference of opinion between Shri R.N. Hawa & Shri S.L. Kakar. It arises from a reference made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 18-3-60. Phool Chand and Shantilal preferred objections against the assessments made on the lands in their holdings. The A.S.O Shri Hamsiuddin decided the objections in their favour. The A.S.O. found that Phoolchand had not enjoyed the concession on account of the well permissible under sec. 159 for the full term of 20 years and, therefore, allowed the concession for the year 2015. As a result the assessed rent over the holding of Phool Chand was reduced from Rs. 45.84 to Rs. 34.38 and further stages of progressive enhancement starting with the assessment of Rs. 25.59 in St. 2015 Rs. 32.90 in Smt. 2016 and full amount of Rs. 34.38 in St. 2017 were laid down. Similarly he accepted the objections of Shantilal and ordered the reduction of the assessed rent from Rs. 36.77 to Rs. 27.58 and also laid down the stages of progressive enhancement starting with Rs. 20/-St. 2015, Rs. 25 in St. 2016 and Rs. 27.58 in St. 2017. The orders were passed by the A.S.O. under secs. 161 and 162 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with secs. 157 and 159 thereof. The Addl. Settlement Commissioner made a reference to the Board of Revenue stating that the orders passed by the A.S.O. were not justified. His contention was that once the benefit of Sec. 159 had been given to the tenant, he could not be given a further benefit under section 161 and 162. He, therefore, recommended that the order of the A.S.O. be set aside and the original assessment on the holding be revived. Having considered the law on the subject Shri S.L. Kakar who initially wrote the proposed judgment came to the conclusion that a person constructing a well over a land for irrigation shall be entitled to an allowance for the improvement u/s 159 as well as to be benefits of the limits of enhancement and its recovery in progressive stages described in Sec. 161 and Sec. 162 of the Act. It was observed by him that there was no bar to it and that the Addl. Settlement Commissioner has erred in holding that if advantage of Sec. 159 of the Act was given, benefit under Secs. It was observed by him that there was no bar to it and that the Addl. Settlement Commissioner has erred in holding that if advantage of Sec. 159 of the Act was given, benefit under Secs. 161 and 162 of the Act could not be given to him. He then went on to interpret the import of Sec. 161 read with Sec. 157 which, to my mind, is not relevant to the reference as framed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. What is relevant is the observation that the tenant who was holding is being assessed under Sec. 157 read with secs. 161 & 162 of the Act would be entitled to the benefit of improvement for a period of 20 years from the date on which the improvement was completed. This concession would of course be given only temporarily for this period irrespective of the assessment made on the basis of the soil classification of the land under the well under sec. 157 of the Act. The assessment would be in accordance with the soil classification and sanctioned rent rates. But the allowance to be made for improvement would be given temporarily for the remaining period. When the proposed order came up before Shri Hawa, he however, decided to dictate a separate judgment. Having reproduced the relevant sections for the sake of convenience, he stumbled across the phrase valuation of the holding at the appropriate sanctioned rent rates in Sec. 161. This section prescribes the limit of enhancement and lays down that where the rent for a holding assessed under sec. 157 exceeds the existing rent thereof, such existing rent shall not be enhanced by more than one-fourth thereof, subject to the condition that the rent so assessed shall in no case be leas than three-quarters of the valuation of the holding at the appropriate sanctioned rent rates. Taking note of the aforesaid phrase he stated that these words are not employed in sec. 157 and, therefore, posed the question whether these words indicate the same thing as the "rent assessed on the basis of the sanctioned rent rates" employed in the preceding sections of the Chapter in which these sections fall. He found that these words do not occur in any of these sections nor do they occur any where in succeeding sections. Taking a clue from the language of sec. He found that these words do not occur in any of these sections nor do they occur any where in succeeding sections. Taking a clue from the language of sec. 152(2) of the Act where it has been laid down that the rent-rates evolved shall represent such share not exceeding one-sixth of the value of the produce referred to in clause(b) of sub-sec.(l) thereof as may be in vogue in the areas to which such rent rates shall relate, he concluded that this valuation of the holding at the appropriate sanctioned rent rates can be only six times of the rent assessed. Then he took note of the word appropriate and observed that rent rates should have been sanctioned in a proper" manner. Having considered all aspects of the question he finally concluded that the phrase valuation of the holding at the appropriate rent" shall have to be read as equivalent to the rent assessed on the basis of the sanctioned rent rates and in no other way. He went on to say that this would co-relate to the valuation of the holding inasmuch as such rent would be l/6th of such valuation. Then he addressed himself to the question of assessment to be made u/s 157 read with sec. 161 which, as stated by me above, is not germane to the reference made by the Addl. Settlement Commissioner in this case. The reference made by the Addl. Settlement Commissioner relates to the impact of sec. 159 on secs. 161 and 162. This question was next taken up by Shri Hawa, It was observed by him that sec. 159 is meant to let a tenant have an allowance for the improvement made in the holding at his own cost. The concession is to be allowed for a total period of 20 years commencing from the date on which the improvement was completed. What is laid down is that the tenant shall not be liable during such period to any enhancement of rent for the increased produce or otherwise arising from such an improvement. But the question still remains whether a tenant may have this concession over and above the concession allowed to him under the provisions of secs. 160, 161 and 162 or he is entitled to have only one concession. In answering this question, he stated that secs. But the question still remains whether a tenant may have this concession over and above the concession allowed to him under the provisions of secs. 160, 161 and 162 or he is entitled to have only one concession. In answering this question, he stated that secs. 160, 161 and 162 come into application only when the tenant is required to pay some thing more than his existing rent and that also when it exceeds the existing rent by 25%. Further, if the concession admissible to him under sec. 159 does not let such a contingency arise, the occasion for the application of secs. 160, 161, 162 would not come into play. Thus in this respect, he concurred with Shri Kakar but chose to differ with the resultant order and entered into detailed calculations of the rent leviable on the aforesaid persons. As stated above, so far as the present reference is concerned, I do not think, it is necessary to enter into these calculations or to interpret the law laid down in Secs. 161 & 162. No doubt, the reference as received from the Addl. Settlement Commissioner is unhappily worded. But as recited by Shri Kakar in his order, the view of the Add. Settlement Commissioner is that once the benefit of Sec. 159 of the Act has been given to a tenant he cannot be given a further benefit under secs. 161 & 162 thereof. As explained above, this view stands negatived according to the unanimous opinion of the learned Members who first heard the case and with which I too am in full agreement. Secs. 157 to Sec. 162 of the L.R. Act stand together and have to be interpreted harmoniously. Evidently, sec. 156 controls sec. 157. Sec. 159 clearly states that where an improvement has been lawfully made in or in relation to a holding by or at the cost of a tenant, the Settlement Officer shall assess the rent thereof under Sec. 157 in a manner so as to ensure to such tenant the enjoyment of the full benefits arising from such improvement for a period of twenty years. Sec. 160 provides that existing rents shall be taken into consideration while assessing rates. Sec. 161 lays down the limits of enhancement. Sec. 162 provides for the progressive enhancement of rent. If the view of the Addl. Sec. 160 provides that existing rents shall be taken into consideration while assessing rates. Sec. 161 lays down the limits of enhancement. Sec. 162 provides for the progressive enhancement of rent. If the view of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner, were to be accepted it would mean that we shall write off Secs. 161 and 162 from the Statute Book, once the benefit of Sec. 159 has been given to a tenant. As my learned colleagues have said earlier, surely this could not be the intention of the legislature and the answer to the reference shall, therefore, be that the benefits contemplated in terms of Secs. 161 & 162 are admissible to a tenant even though he may be entitled to the benefits contemplated in Sec. 159 as well. I would, therefore, answer the reference accordingly and return the case to the Addl. Settlement Commissioner for further necessary action in accordance with the law as clarified above.