State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Singh — 1999 DIGILAW 951 (RAJ)

Honble SHETHNA, J.–All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the point involved in all these cases is same. (2). The Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short `the Act) received the assent of the President on the 14th day of March, 1956. Sec. 15-A was introduced and added on 24.3.60 giving retrospective effect to it. The validity of the same was challenged before this Court in several petitions. However, the challenge failed before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.4.72. Against which special appeals were filed which were also dismissed on 20.1.73. The same is Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1). The same was challenged before the Honble Supreme Court by way of S.L.Ps. During the pendency and final disposal of S.L.Ps., Section 15-AAA came to be added in the Act on 29.12.79. In view of the amendment of Sec. 15-AAA of the Act, the S.L.PS. were disposed of by the Honble Supreme Court on 31.7.86 on the ground that now Sec. 15-AAA of the Act is introduced in the Act, therefore, the cultivators may apply before the competent authority for conferring them Khatedari rights of the land in question which were in their possession prior to 1955. Accordingly, those cultivators applied before the competent authority. The applicants/cultivators are classified in three sets by the learned counsel Mr. Prakash Tatia for the petitioner -(1) Those applicants whose applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 18.1.88. They approached the Board of Revenue by way of revision petitions which were also dismissed on 29.10.90. It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel Mr. Tatia that the said order passed by the Board of Revenue on 29.10.90 dismissing the revision petitions of those persons became final as the same was not carried by them before this Honble Court or any higher forum; (2) Second set of the applicants consists of the cultivators whose applications were dismissed by the competent authority on 5.12.87. Against which revision petitions were filed and the same were also dismissed on 31.7.96 (Annex.1). Out of so many applicants, only one applicant/ cultivator Basant Kumar challenged the order of the Board of Revenue passed on 31.7.96 before the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3525/96 -Basant Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. Out of so many applicants, only one applicant/ cultivator Basant Kumar challenged the order of the Board of Revenue passed on 31.7.96 before the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3525/96 -Basant Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. It is stated at the bar that the same is admitted by the learned Single Judge of this Court and while granting stay, it was made clear that the order is passed only in favour of the petitioner who has approached the Court. The said matter is pending before this Court for final disposal; (3) The third set of the applicants consists of those applicants whose applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector cum Executive Magistrate on 14.12.87. They challenged the order in separate appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority which were allowed on 15.10.90 and it was ordered to confer them khatedari rights. Aggrieved of this order dated 15.10.90 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the State preferred separate revision petitions before the Board of Revenue which were also dismissed on 12.6.98. The said common judgment and order dated 12.6.98 passed by the Board of Revenue is challenged by the petitioner-State of Rajasthan in all these petitions. (3). Learned Counsel Mr. Tatia appearing for the State of Rajasthan vehemently submitted that it was not proper on the part of the Board of Revenue to take a contrary view in the matter when the coordinate bench of the Board of Revenue had already dismissed similar revision petitions filed by the said applicants-cultivators on 29.10.90 and 31.7.96. He, therefore, submitted that this court should interfere with the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel Mr. Tatia further submitted that the Board of Revenue has completely misread the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). He, therefore, submitted that all these petitions be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority allowing the appeals and the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on 12.6.98 dismissing the revision petitions filed by the State Government, be quashed and set aside. (4). Before dealing with the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. He, therefore, submitted that all these petitions be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority allowing the appeals and the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on 12.6.98 dismissing the revision petitions filed by the State Government, be quashed and set aside. (4). Before dealing with the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Tatia, I would first like to reproduce Sec. 15-AAA which was introduced in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for the first time on 29.12.79:- ``15AAA. Accrual of Khatedari rights in the (Indira Gandhi Canal area)-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 15A, any person who, at the commencement of this Act- (a) was a holder of Khudkasht or an occupancy tenant or a Maurusidar or a khatedar tenant or a tenant with transferable and heritable rights and was recorded as such in the annual registers then current, or (b) was not so recorded, but was a holder of Khudkasht or an occupancy tenant or a Maurusidar or a khatedar tenant or a tenant with transferable and heritable rights, shall, as from the date of the commencement of this Act, be entitled to all the rights, and subject to all the liabilities, of a khatedar tenant under this Act. (2) Every person claiming that the rights mentioned in clauses (b) of sub-section (1) accrued to him shall, within one year of the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1979 and on the payment of court fee of fifty paisa, apply to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction, or to any other authority as may prescribed by the State Government from time to time, for a declaration that he acquired Khatedari rights under clause (b) of sub-section (1) in the land held by him and the provisions of sub-section (5) shall apply to such application. (5). (5). At this stage I may also state that sub-section 2-A was introduced in Sec. 15-AAA on 11.11.92 which I would also like to reproduced which is as under;- ``(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 15-A, any person who was a holder of Khudkasht or a tenant of land otherwise than as a sub-tenant or a tenant of khudkast within the Indira Gandhi Canal area, whether recorded as such at the commencement of this Act or subsequently in the record of rights, prepared during the survey or re-survey and record operations conducted under Sec. 106 and 107 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956), shall be entitled to all the rights, and be subject to all the liabilities, of a khatedar tenant under this Act, with respect to the whole or such part of the land held as does not exceed the maximum area of land which he is entitled to hold in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1973.) (6). The respondents-applicants are cultivators and cultivating their lands prior to 1955. Initially on the amendment of Sec. 15-A of the Act, they were compelled to file writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of this Court, then before the Division Bench of this Court in special appeals. They failed before the High Court and, therefore, the matters were carried to the Honble Supreme Court by way of S.L.Ps. During the pendency of the S.L.Ps. Sec. 15-AAA came to be amended in the Act therefore, the Honble Supreme Court asked those applicants/cultivators to approach the competent authorities for conferring them khatedari rights. It is true that there are three classes of the applicants before the competent authority. Certain poor cultivators lost their cases before the Assistant Collector. Then revision petitions were also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 29.10.90. It seems that they are poor farmers and are unable to approach the Courts. Therefore, the said judgment of the Board of Revenue became final. There are other applicants whose applications were dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority against which revision petitions were filed which were also dismissed on 31.7.96. Out of several applicants, only one applicant Basant Kumar could afford to approach this Court by way of writ petition no. Therefore, the said judgment of the Board of Revenue became final. There are other applicants whose applications were dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority against which revision petitions were filed which were also dismissed on 31.7.96. Out of several applicants, only one applicant Basant Kumar could afford to approach this Court by way of writ petition no. 3525/96, therefore, this Court admitted his petition and granted stay finding strong prima-facie case in his favour. Rest of the applicants accepted the judgment of the Board of Revenue delivered on 31.7.96 because of paucity of funds or whatever may be the other reasons. (7). The present petitions are arising out the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate dismissing the applications of the respondent cultivators who approached the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of appeal which were fortunately allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. However, the State of Rajasthan has not accepted the same and challenged it unsuccessfully before the Board of Revenue as the Board of Revenue dismissed the same by a common judgment and order dated 28.6.98. Instead of satisfying with the order of the Board of Revenue, the State of Rajasthan took the decision to challenge the said order before this Court by way of these petitions on the technical grounds like (1) that the Board of Revenue did not consider the earlier judgment of the coordinate bench and (2) misconstrued the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. (8). Out of these ten petitions, learned counsel Mr. L.R. Mehta appears on caveat in the writ petition nos. 4087/98, 3916/98, 3917/98 and 4088/98 for the original applicants. (9). It is true that when there was an earlier judgment of the coordinate bench of the Board of Revenue, the subsequent bench of the Board of Revenue should have respected the same. If it was not agreeing with the same, then it could have referred it to the larger Bench. Instead of that, the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petitions and confirmed the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeals. At the most we can say that there was impropriety on the part of the Board of Revenue in doing so. (10). In ordinary circumstances, this Court would have definatly interfered with such orders in its supervisory jurisdiction. Instead of that, the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petitions and confirmed the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeals. At the most we can say that there was impropriety on the part of the Board of Revenue in doing so. (10). In ordinary circumstances, this Court would have definatly interfered with such orders in its supervisory jurisdiction. However, on peculiar facts of these cases, I am not inclined to exercise my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the simply reason that the poor respondents-farmers who have cultivated their land since years together cannot be now deprived of their khatedari rights in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue and others (2). In para 5 of the judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under :- ``5. It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating possession of the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades. (11). In this case, the claim of the respondents-cultivators was that they were in actual possession and cultivating the land prior to 1955 which was disputed by the learned counsel Mr. Tatia. However, Mr. Tatia himself could not say that they were atleast in possession of the land since 1970 meaning thereby that they are in possession of their lands since last three decades. When they have developed and nourished the said land and if this Court interferes with the order passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the khatedari rights are conferred upon them, it would be nothing but a travesty of justice. (12). The second submission of Mr. Tatia that the learned member of the Board of Revenue has misinterpreted or misconstrued the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jugal Kishores case (supra). (12). The second submission of Mr. Tatia that the learned member of the Board of Revenue has misinterpreted or misconstrued the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jugal Kishores case (supra). Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the Board of Revenue has committed some error or mistake in properly appreciating the judgment of Division Bench in Jugal Kishores case (supra), then also I would not like to interfere with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue in these petitions because it is clearly stated by the Honble Judges of the Division Bench of this Court in para 21 of the Jugal Kishores case (supra) that they cannot be said to be trespassers. It was clearly found that they were erstwhile tenants. In that view of the matter even if the Board of Revenue has committed some error, this Court is not bound to correct it when substantial justice has been done by the Board of Revenue to the poor cultivators/farmers. (13). In view of the above discussion, all these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs with the hope that the State of Rajasthan will rest here.