Durga Devi v. Board of Revenue — 1996 DIGILAW 1273 (RAJ)

Honble ARORA, J – The petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Sada Lal, who was recorded as the Khatedar with respect to 72 Bightas 5 Biswas of land in village 61-GBand 63 GB Shri Sada Lal filed a declaration u/R 9 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of the Land) Government Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1963) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisingh- nagar for determination of the ceiling area applicable to him. In the declaration it was averred that he is having 72 Bighas 5 Biswas of land in village 61-GB and 63 GB and the number of his family members is eight. The Sub-Dinsional Officer, Raisinghnagar, sent the matter for enquiry to the Tehsildar (Revenue), Anoopgarh.The Tehsildar( Revenue), Anoopgarh, after enquiry and verification of the declaration, reported that Sada Lal is having 72 Bighas 15 Biswas of land and the number of his family members is eight.Two sons of Sada Lal,viz.,Mangat Ram and Parmanand, purchased 24 Bighas of land in the years 1968 and 1969.A partition of the land between Sada Lal and his two sons Mangat Ram and Parmanand took place by a decree of the Court dated 27.11.1971. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, by his order dated 23.12.1971 decided the ceiling case of Sada Lal and held that Sada Lal is not having any excess land then the ceiling area applicable to him and he, therefore, dropped the proceedings. (2) The State Government, by its order dated 30 .10.1976 reopened the ceiling proceedings of Sada Lal u/s 15(2) of the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agri- Agricultural-Holdings) Act, 1973 and referred the matter to the Additional Collector(Administration), Sri Ganganagar for adjudication.The Additional Collector (Administration), Sri Ganganagar, by his order dated 8.12.1992 decided the ceiling matter of Sada Lal and held that Sada Lal was having 72 Bighas 15 Biswas of land on 1.4.1966 and he purchased 24 Bighas of land in Square No. 69 of Chak 63-GB in the years 1968-69 which has to be included in the holdings of Sada Lal in view of Sec. 30 -E of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and in this way Sada Lal and his family members are having 96 Bighas 15 Biswas of the land and the number of his family members are 8 and, thus,Sada Lal is having 27 Bighas 3 Biswas of land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him and his family. (3) During the pendency of these proceedings, Sada Lal died and his legal representatives were taken on record. (4) Aggrieved of the order dated 8.12.1992 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration),Sri Ganganagar, determining the ceiling of Sada Lal and declaring 27Bighas 3 Biswas of land as surplus land, the legal representatives of Sada Lal, i.e. the present petitioners, preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Boardof Revenue, by the order dated 3.9.1994 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioners. The legal representatives of deceased Sada Lal thereafter filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue u/s 80 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and that review petition was also dismissed by the Board of Re- venue by its order dated 22.5.1995. (5) Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Board of Revenue determining the ceiling area of the petitioners and declaring 27 Bighas 3 Biswas of land as surplus land, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition. (6) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for determi- nation of the ceiling area applicable to the petitioners, the relevant date is 1.4.1966 and any land acquired by them after 1.4.1966 cannot be taken into consideration for determination of the ceiling area as on the appointed date.Sada Lal and his family members were not having the land in excess to the ceiling area applicable to them and, therefore, the declaration of 27 Bighas 3 biswas of land as the excess land by the Board of Revenue and the Additional Collector (Adm.),Sri Ganganagar, is ex facie illegal and bad in the eye of law. (7) Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand,has submitted that the family members of deceased Sada Lal acquired 24 Bighas of land in the year 1968-69 and while determining the ceiling area of Sada Lal and his family, the land heldby him and his family members on the date of decision can be taken into consideration in view of the provisions of Sec. 30-E(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned Additional Collector was competent to consider the changed circumstances on the date of the decision and the land acquired by Sada Lal and his family members on that day and, therefore, he rightly took note of this material fact and rightly clubbed the land which was acquired by the family members of deceased Sada Lal before the date of the decision. (8) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (9) Sub-section 6(a) of Sec. 5 of the Act defines the `ceiling area applicable to a person in relation to the land held by him or by his family members any where through-out the State. The Scheme of the Act reflects that the ceiling area of each person/family is to be determined with respect to the state of affairs existing and the land held by the person or the family on the appointed date, i.e. on 1.4.1966 and not with reference to the date of decision of the case. The ceiling area has to be determined with respect to the conditions prevailing and the land held by him or the family as on 1.4.1966. The crucial date for determination of the ceiling area is the notified date, i.e.,1.4.1966 and the acquisition of any land by way of purchase or transfer by any of the family members cannot be considered after the appointed date for determination of the ceiling area as on that date the person or the family was not having the excess land on the appointed date and the same was acquired later on. (10) A similar controversy : which will be the relevant date for determination of the ceiling area, came -up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in Raghunath Laxman Wani and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtr a & Ors. (1) and the Supreme Court, after considering the law on the point, in para 17 of the judgment, held that ``the Scheme of the Act seems to be to determine the ceiling area of each person (including a family) with reference to the appointed date. The policy of the Act appears to be that on and after the appointed date, no person in the State should be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area as determined under the Act and tht ciling area would be that which is determined as on the appointed day. The policy of the Act appears to be that on and after the appointed date, no person in the State should be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area as determined under the Act and tht ciling area would be that which is determined as on the appointed day. (11) Similar controversy came-up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in : Kesari Lal vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramganjmandi & Ors.(2), and the Division Bench of this Court held that ``In our view, when the legislature says that no person shall hold land in excess of ceiling area with respect to a noti- fied date that intention cannot be allowed to become non-existent and of no effect by augments of events which may supervene subsequent to that date. The question of holding an enquiry is also a procedural matter to determine whether the declaration given by a person is correct or not. But the relevant date, with respect to ceiling area, has been determined by the Legislature. The notified date cannot and does not fluctuate. (12) The same view was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court : Ram Ratan vs. State of Raj. & Ors., (3) and the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the rights of the parties with respect to the ceiling area have to be determined with respect to the notified date and not with respect to the date of decision of the case. (13) In the present case, the Additional Collector (Administration),Sri Ganganagar as well as the Board of Revenue have taken into consideration the land acquired by Sada Lal and his family in the year 1968-69 and clubbed the same with the land which the claimants were having on 1.4.1966.The land acquired by the person or the family after the notified date cannot be taken into consideration for determination of the ceiling area. For determination of the land, the position existing on 1.4.1966 had to be taken into consideration. On the appointed date, Sada Lal and his family members were having 72 Bighas 15 Biswas of land and the number of family members was eight.The family was entitled to have 69 Bighas 12 Biswas of land and, thus, the family was having 3 Bighas 3 Biswas of surplus land. On the appointed date, Sada Lal and his family members were having 72 Bighas 15 Biswas of land and the number of family members was eight.The family was entitled to have 69 Bighas 12 Biswas of land and, thus, the family was having 3 Bighas 3 Biswas of surplus land. As this was only a fragment, therefore, the family was entitled to retain the possession over this land. If any land has been acquired by the person or the family after 1.4.1966 then the proceedings can be taken against them u/s 30 -E of the Act but the land acquired after 1.4.1966 cannot be included for determination of the ceiling area. The judgment Annexure 3 passed by Board of Revenue,affirming the order Annexure 2 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Sri Ganganagar,and determining the ceiling area of Sada Lal and the family, declaring 27 bighas 3 biswas of land as `surplus land deserves to be quashed and set-aside. (14) In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the order Annexure 3 dated 13.9.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the order Annexure 2 dated 8.12.1992 passed by the Additional Collector (Adm.), Sri Ganganagar, are quashed and set-aside and it is held that the petitioners or Sada Lal were/ was not holding any land on 1.4.1966 which was in excess of the ceiling area applicable to them or Sada Lal .