Ranjeet Singh v. Jagdish Singh — 1964 DIGILAW 123 (RAJ)

JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution by one Ranjit Singh against an order of the Collector of Ganganagar dated 27th March 1963 purporting to have been passed by him in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The petition has been contested by Jagdish Singh respondent. 2. Ahata No. 6 in Chak 22 was sold to Jagdish Singh by auction on 20.5.58 by the Panchayat of Sahibsinghwala for Rs. 80/-. Subsequently it was discovered that the Ahata had already been sold to one Shamsher Singh. The Panchayat thereupon allotted Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 having an area less than that of Ahata No. 6 to Jagdish Singh on 20.11.60 for the same amount without holding an auction, under order Annexure I. 3. Ranjit Singh petitioner filed an appeal to the Panchayat Samiti, Mirzewala on 1.7.61 against the above order. This appeal was allowed by the Panchayat Samiti. The allotment of Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 in favour of Jagdish Singh was set aside and directions were issued to the Panchayat to auction Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 in favour of Ranjit Singh and Ahatas Nos. 57 and 58 in favour of Jagdish Singh. This order was passed on 1.11.61 (Annexure II). 4. Jagdish Singh filed a revision application before the Collector of Ganga-nagar, who set aside the order of the Panchayat Samiti and restored that of the Panchayat on the ground that no appeal lay to the Panchayat Samiti. 5. The first contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the above order is erroneous. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that no appeal lay against the above order of the Panchayat dated 20.11.60. 6. The Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1953 as enacted originally did not expressly provide for an appeal against an administrative order of the Panchayat. Sec. 58(6) of that Act however ran as follows— "A Tehsil Panchayat shall exercise general supervision over the affairs of all Panchayats established within the local limits of its jurisdiction and shall also hear appeals from all or any of the decrees, sentences, decisions, orders and directions made by such Panchayat." 7. It was held by this Court in Redaram Vs. Bhoopram (1) that the above sub-section inter alia provided for an appeal against all administrative orders of the Panchayat to the Tehsil Panchayat. 8. It was held by this Court in Redaram Vs. Bhoopram (1) that the above sub-section inter alia provided for an appeal against all administrative orders of the Panchayat to the Tehsil Panchayat. 8. Sec. 58(6) of the Panchayat Act was however amended by sec. 4(xv) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959 which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 9.9.59 and which came into force on 10.9.59. The above sub-section was deleted and the following was substituted in its place :— "(6) A Tehsil Panchayat shall hear appeals from decrees, sentences, decisions, orders and directions made, in the exercise of its civil and criminal jurisdiction, by a Panchayat within the local limits of that Tehsil Panchayat." 9. The result of the above amendment was that no appeal lay to the Tehsil Panchayat any longer against an administrative order of the Panchayat. 10. At the same time by sec. 4(xiii) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959 sec. 26-A was introduced in Chapter III of the Panchayat Act. This section runs as follows :— "Sec. 26-A. Appeals from orders of Panchayats under Chapter III—(1) Any person aggrieved by any order or direction of a Panchayat under Chapter or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder may appeal from such order or direction to the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date of such order or direction exclusive of the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof. (2) An appeal under sub-sec. (1) shall be heard by a standing committee of the Panchayat Samiti constituted under sec. 20 of Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959. (3) The standing committee referred to in this sub-sec. (2) may, after hearing the person aggrieved, the Panchayat and any other person affectted by the order or direction appealed against, vary, set aside or confirm such order or direction and may also award costs to or against the person filing the appeal. (4) The decision of the standing committee shall for all purposes be deemed to be the decision of Panchayat Samiti." 11. The above section provides for an appeal to the Panchayat Samiti against an administrative order of the Panchayat passed under Chapter III only. The power to sell Panchayat land is not contained in Chapter III or in the Rules made under that Chapter. It is contained in sec. The above section provides for an appeal to the Panchayat Samiti against an administrative order of the Panchayat passed under Chapter III only. The power to sell Panchayat land is not contained in Chapter III or in the Rules made under that Chapter. It is contained in sec. 88(6) which falls under Chapter VI. No appeal therefore lay to the Panchayat Samiti against an order of the Panchayat relating to the sale of the abadi land. 12. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended on the authority of the decision in Doongar Mal vs. Roop Singh (2) that a right of appeal is a substantive right which cannot be taken away. Such an extreme proposition has not been laid down in the decision. All that is laid down is that a right of appeal cannot be allowed to be taken away retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment. From the amendment of sec. 58(6) excluding the jurisdiction of the Tehsil Panchayat in appeals against administrative orders of the Panchayat and from the fact that no forum was created for the filing of appeals against orders of Panchayats relating to the sale of abadi land it could be inferred that for the time being it was not intended to provide for such appeals. The result was that the substantive right of filing an appeal against a decision of the Panchayat relating to the sale of abadi land perished. In this connection the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Daji Saheb vs. Shankar Rao (3) may be referred to. 13. Subsequently the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Ganeral) Rules, 1961, were framed. They came into force on 20.3.61. Provision for filing an appeal against an order of a Panchayat relating to the sale of abadi land is contained in R. 270 of these Rules. Such an appeal of course lies to the Panchayat Samiti. But these Rules came into force on 20.3.61. The period of limitation provided under R. 270 is 30 days. There is however nothing to show that R. 270 was intended to be retrospective. An appeal under R. 270 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, is only maintainable against an order of the Panchayat which was passed after these Rules came into force. 14. The period of limitation provided under R. 270 is 30 days. There is however nothing to show that R. 270 was intended to be retrospective. An appeal under R. 270 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, is only maintainable against an order of the Panchayat which was passed after these Rules came into force. 14. It will thus be seen that no appeal lay against an order of the Panchayat relating to the sale of abadi land which was passed between 10.9.60 and 19.3.61. 15. I now proceed to consider the next contention of the petitioner. It is asserted on his behalf that the allotment of Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 to Jagdish Singh by the Panchayat was void as the procedure prescribed in R. 37-A of the General Rules 1954 which Were then in force was not followed and the Ahatas were not disposed of by public auction. Reliance is placed in this connection on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Devilal vs. Tehsil Panchayat Padampur (4). 16. On behalf of Jagdish Singh respondent it is however contended that the case is covered by sub-rule 17(b) of R. 37-A. Sub-rules (17), (18) and (19) run as follows :— "(17), The Panchayat may sell Abadi land by private sale (that is, without holding an auction) in the following cases— (a) where a person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price ; (b) where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land ; (c) in the cases provided for in sub-rules (18) and (19). (18) Where any person appears to have been in possession either by himself or through his predecessors in title for 40 years or more consecutively, though he has no sale-deed in his favour, the Panchayat may execute a sale-deed in his favour of the land for an amount equal to 6-1/4 % of the normal value of the land. Such sale-deed shall not be regarded as affecting the rights of any other persons in or to or over the land. In assessing the amount equal to 6-1/4% as aforesaid, annas or fraction of annas shall be rounded off to the next eight annas or rupee. Such sale-deed shall not be regarded as affecting the rights of any other persons in or to or over the land. In assessing the amount equal to 6-1/4% as aforesaid, annas or fraction of annas shall be rounded off to the next eight annas or rupee. (19) If the Panchayat regards such course to be necessary for the advancement of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes it may grant them Abadi land without Nazrana, or sell such land to them without auction." 17. In the [order of the Panchayat dated 20.11.60 (Annexure I) allotting Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 to Jagdish Singh the Panchayat has given a reason in writing for allotting the land to Jagdish Singh without holding an auction. That reason is that Ahata No. 6 the area of which is bigger than the combined areas of Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 had been sold to Jagdish Singh by public auction by mistake by the Panchayat. It appears that the Panchayat considered itself morally bound to allot some land to Jagdish Singh to whom it had sold a plot which had already been sold to another person. 18. Ranjit Singh has asserted in this petition that he was in possession of Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 since the year 1950 and his house stood on that plot since that year. He has filed two certificates given to him in April 1964 by Dasram, Chairman, Administration Standing Committee and Bachan Singh, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat 3 H. Chhoti. In these certificates it is stated that Ranjit Singh constructed a house in Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60, 7 years ago and in it he has been residing continuously. A perusal of the proceedings of the Panchayat and the Panchayat Samiti however goes to show that this assertion is false. 19. The proceedings of the Panchayat go to show that before allotting Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 to Jagdish Singh the land was inspected by Arjun Singh Panch, who submitted a report (Ex. A 9) that they were vacant and that there was no tree on them and no one was in possession over any part of them. By mistake Arjun Singh put a wrong date on this report. It is dated 20.11.61. The correct date should have been 20.11.60. 20. A 9) that they were vacant and that there was no tree on them and no one was in possession over any part of them. By mistake Arjun Singh put a wrong date on this report. It is dated 20.11.61. The correct date should have been 20.11.60. 20. During the pendency of the appeal of Ranjit Singh before the Panchayat Samiti Jagdish Singh complained that Ranjit Singh was trying to take possession over the land in Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 by putting up wire fencing around it. The land was thereupon inspected by members of the Administration Standing Committee of which Dasram is the Chairman. They submitted a report (Ex. A-17), This report is signed by Dasram also. It is stated in this report that the wire fencing etc. were erected after the Panchayat Samiti had issued a stay order. It is therefore clear that no house or tree constructed or planted by Ranjit Singh or by any one else stood in these Ahatas on 21.9.61 when the inspection was made. 21. The Ahatas fell within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Matili on 20.11.61 and the Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat submitted a report (Ex. A.9) on 20.11.61 in compliance with the orders of the Panchayat Samiti. It is clearly mentioned in this report that no one was in possession over these two plots and that there was no tree standing on them. 22. I accordingly find that prima facie the Panchayat did give reasons as required by R. 37-A(17)(b) of the Panchayat General Rules 1954 for allotting Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 to Jagdish Singh and the allotment of land by private sale cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. 23. Further it appears that the Panchayat of Sahibsinghwala has been allotting land to numerous persons on payment of nominal charges without holding an auction. The learned counsel for Jagdish Singh drew my attention to the provisions contained in sec. 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules 1955, published in Volume III of the Rajasthan Rules under Rajasthan Acts at page 723 and contended that the Panchayat in all probability acted under the powers of allotting land under sec. 31 of the Tenancy Act. 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules 1955, published in Volume III of the Rajasthan Rules under Rajasthan Acts at page 723 and contended that the Panchayat in all probability acted under the powers of allotting land under sec. 31 of the Tenancy Act. That section runs as follows :— "Right to residential house.—(1) subject to any rules, that may be made by the State Government in this behalf, a tenant shall have the right, free of charge, to possess in the abadi of the village in which he holds land a site for residential house : Provided that, if he holds land in more than one village, he may choose the village in which he wishes to enjoy this concession and shall not be entitled to this concession in more than one village: Provided further that he shall have to make an application to the Tehsildar, if he has no residential house, for allotment of a suitable site for the purpose, Explanation—A residential house shall include an enclosure or shed for cattle as well as accomodation for stocking seed, fodder and agricultural implements and also land required for the construction of reservoir or tanka. (2) Subject as aforesaid and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 95, 96, 97, 98 and 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956), an agricultural worker or an artisan who may have been permanently residing in the abadi of a village for ten years or more shall also have the right, free of charge, to possess in the abadi of that village a site for a residential house and the provisions contained the second proviso to sub-sec. (1) shall apply. Explanation—For the purpose of sub-sec. (2)— (a) "agricultural worker" shall mean a person who is not a tenant but works as a labourer on the field or fields of a tenant lying within the village of his residence; and (b) "artisan" shall include a blacksmith, a carpenter, a cobbler, a potter and a weaver." Under R. 8 of the Rules referred to above the power to allot site in the abadi for residence has been delegated to the village Panchayats. Land could be allotted to a tenant at the scale laid down in R. 15 free of any premium. Land could be allotted to a tenant at the scale laid down in R. 15 free of any premium. The area however which could be allotted to any one tenant should not exceed 250 sq. yards. The area of Ahatas Nos. 59 and 60 is more than 400 sq. yds. But Jagdish Singh is a cultivator in Chak 22-Z in which these Ahatas are situated. 24. Lastly there is no reason why this Court should interfere with the order of the Panchayat in favour of the petitioner who has come to this Court with false allegations about his previous possession. 25. In the result the writ petition is dismissed with costs. The stay order passed in the case in discharged.