Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 591 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mahendra Singh

1994-08-01

G.C.MITTAL, P.P.NAOLEKAR

body1994
Honble NAOLEKAR, J. - This judgment shall govern the disposal of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 329/84 also. (2). Writ Petition No. 1391/76 was filed by late Shreeji Maharana Shri Bhagawat Singhji of Mewar, whose legal representatives have been brought on record, against the officers of the State of Rajasthan and the State of Rajasthan, challenging the impugned demand dated 24.2 75 (Annex.5) issued by the Tehsildar, Girwa, for Rs. 34099 .89 relating to the land revenue and irrigation charges u/s 3 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Aquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as the Act) and the order of the Tehsildar dated 18.3.75 (Annex.6) and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 22.6.76 (Annex.7). The properties for which the demand has been raised are: (i) Samore Bagh palace and garden, (ii) Champa Bagh Palace and garden, (iii) Sahelion Ki Bari, (iv) Khas Odi, (v) Gordhan Vilas & (vi) Sheel Nikunj. (3). It was contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that the aforesaid properties for which the respondents have sought to impose land irrigation charges are not liable to such land and irrigation charges under the Act. The learned single Judge by his judgement dated 26.4.84 held, inter alia, that properties no. 1 to 4 were included in the inventory being palaces and gardens and, therefore, they were excluded from the definition of "land" under the Act and could not be assessed to land revenue. It was also observed by the Court that in view of the agreement between the ex-Ruler and the Government, the petitioners, after 1971, is liable to pay irrigation charges as agreed by them. If it is not paid, the respondents will be entitled to ask for irrigation charges at the usual rated in accordance with law. But before 1971 in so far as Sahelion Ki Bari is concerned, irrigation charges of sum of Rs. 125/- p.m. cannot be asked for. The High Court by the said order has quashed the impugned demand in respect of properties no.l to 4. That part of the order of the High Court is under challenge in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 328/84. 125/- p.m. cannot be asked for. The High Court by the said order has quashed the impugned demand in respect of properties no.l to 4. That part of the order of the High Court is under challenge in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 328/84. However, in respect of properties known as Gordhan Vilas and Sheel Nikunj, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the ex-Ruler had proprietory right in the said properties and as the said properties were not included in the inventory, they were liable to all the advantages and disadvantages of the Act. The land comprised in the said properties come within the definition of "land" under the Act and, therefore, they were liable to land revenue u/s 3 of the Act. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition so far as properties no. 5 and 6 are concerned. Against it, the petitioners have filed a special appeal, which is registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 329/84. (4). Property no. 1 Samore Bagh palace and garden and Champa Bagh palace and garden are included in the inventory prepared in pursuance of Article XII of the Covenant and approved by the Government of India. Property No. 3 Sahelion Ki Bari was declared to be the private property and was included in the inventory by the communication dated 28.3.51. By communication dated 20.12.61, the Assistant Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, informed the Collector that southern boundary of the palace includes both Khas Odi and Badi Pal and was declared to be a part of the city palace and included in the inventory. This position is not challenged by the counsel for the State also. Therefore, we have to proceed with the premises that the properties no. 1 to 4 are specified in the inventory of the private properties of the Ruler prepared in pursuance of Article XII of the Covenant and are finally approved by the Government of India. (5). It is contended by the counsel for the State that properties no. 1 to 4 includes agricultural lands and thus, those agricultural lands are covered u/s 2(f) of the Act. Section 2(f) reads as under: — 2(f). (5). It is contended by the counsel for the State that properties no. 1 to 4 includes agricultural lands and thus, those agricultural lands are covered u/s 2(f) of the Act. Section 2(f) reads as under: — 2(f). "land" means and land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto including waste land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans and includes- (a) tanks, lakes, ponds, river and water channels held for purposes of irrigation, (b) surface of hills, (c) landing grounds or strips, and (d) shikargarh, but does not include forts, palace buildings and building plots, specified in the inventory." Section 2(f) defines "land."Land" means a land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto including waste land, forest land, and for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans . The last part of this provision but does not include forts palace buildings and building plots, specified in the inventory". Land of forts, palace buildings and building plots specified in the inventory are excluded from the definition of land. "Inventory" has been defined in s. 2(d), which means inventory of the private properties of the Ruler prepared in pursuance of Article XII of the Covenant and finally approved by the Government of India. The land which is included in the inventory as a palace building will not be covered in the definition of "land" as provided in s. 2(f) of the Act. Admittedly, properties no.l to 4 have been specified in the inventory. (6). It has been held by the apex Court in Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (1) that land falling within the Boundaries of palace which was included in government approved inventory as private property of the former ruler, is not a "land" within the meaning of s. 2(f) and as such not an "estate" u/s 2(b) .Therefore, the land which form the part of the palace and included in the boundaries of the palace shall not be the land within the meaning of s.2(f) of the Act and will not be an "estate" u/s 3 of the Act. (7). Liability to pay land revenue is in respect of "estate". (7). Liability to pay land revenue is in respect of "estate". If the land is not an estate within the meaning of the Act, no land revenue can be charged u/s 3 of the Act. The properties prescribed in items no. 1 to 4 being not the land, the government had no authority to charge land revenue. The learned single Judge has rightly allowed the petition and quashed the impugned demand in respect of the properties at items no. 1 to 4 and special appeal is dismissed so far as these properties are concerned. (8). Regarding items no.5 and 6 Gordhan Vilas and Sheel Kikunj , it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner Ruler that as the properties are not included in the inventory of private properties of the Ruler prepared in pursuance of Article XII of the Covenant and approved by the Government of India, it will not be properties belonging to the landowner and , therefore, will not be an "estate" and consequent thereto, no land revenue is chargeable exercising the powers u/s 3 of the Act. (9). To understand the contention of the counsel, we will have to look into the definition of "landowner" as defined in s. 2(g), the definition of "estate" as defined in s. 2(b) and the charging section, section 3. They read as under: — "2(b) "estate" means land or right, title or interest in land held by a land owner;" "2(g) "landowner" means the Ruler of a Covenanting State in Rajasthan holding an estate under and in accordance with the settlement of his personal or private properties made in pursuance of the Covenant and finally approved by the Central Government;" "3. Liability of estates to pay land-revenue- (1) Every estate shall be liable to the payment of land revenue to the Government as from the 1st day of April 1963 and till the day immediately preceding its acquisition. (2) The amount of land revenue payable in respect of any estate of a landowner shall be assessed by the Collector in the manner hereinafter provided in this chapter. (2) The amount of land revenue payable in respect of any estate of a landowner shall be assessed by the Collector in the manner hereinafter provided in this chapter. (3) The amount of the land revenue payable under sub- section (1) shall be equal to one fourth of the rental income from the estate as determined in accordance with the provisions of the sections 4 and 5." Under section 2(g), the landowner is who is a Ruler of a Covenanting State in the State of Rajasthan holding an estate under or in accordance with the settlement made in pursuance of the Covenant and aproved by the Central Government for personal or private properties. Under this definition, the Ruler was to be treated as a landowner if there is a Covenant in respect of personal or private properties approved by the Central Government. "Estate" is defined to be the land or right, title or interest in land held by the landowner. If the properties are not held by the landowner, it will not be an estate within the definition of s. 2(b) of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioners in this case, had not entered into any Covenant in respect of the properties Gordhan Vilas and Sheel Nikunj with the State of Rajasthan and, therefore,they will not be landowners as contemplated u/s 2(g) of the Act.If they are not the landowners, the land held by them shall not be the estate within the meaning of s. 2(b) of the Act.Under s. 3, every estate is made liable to pay land revenue to the Government of Rajasthan as from the 1st day of April, 1963 and till the day immediately preceding its acquisition. The "estate" has a significant meaning under the Act. "Estate" as defined in s. 2(b). If there is no estate, there cannot be a levy of land revenue u/s 3 of the Act because it is only the estate, which is liable to payment of land revenue. The properties at items no. 5 and 6 are not the properties held by the landowner and are not the estate, therefore, the impugned demand in respect of items no. 5 and 6 Gordhan Vilas and Sheel Nikunj for land revenue is beyond the competence of the State under the Act. The impugned demand Annex. The properties at items no. 5 and 6 are not the properties held by the landowner and are not the estate, therefore, the impugned demand in respect of items no. 5 and 6 Gordhan Vilas and Sheel Nikunj for land revenue is beyond the competence of the State under the Act. The impugned demand Annex. 5 and the consequent orders Annexures 6 & 7 in respect of the properties 5 and 6 are set aside. (10). Special Appeal No. 329/84 is allowed. The order of the single Judge in Writ Petition No 1391/76 regarding properties Gordhan Vilas and Sheel Nikunj is set aside. The rule is, therefore, made absolute as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.