Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 469 (RAJ)

Mool Chand v. State Of Rajasthan

2001-03-22

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. 1. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against Bala Bux under the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Government Rules, 1963 (for short Old Ceiling Law) by the Authorised Officer Baran. During the pendency of the proceedings Bala Bux died and his major son Mool Chand and Brij Mohan son of Gujar Mal were brought on record and the Authorised Officer vide his judgment dated April 2, 1976 held 87.27 standard acres of land excess than the ceiling limit and ordered its resumption. Against the said judgment petitioners Mool Chand and Smt. Ram Janki Bai preferred two separate appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short the RAA). The RAA vide judgment dated July 2, 1976 dismissed the appeal of Smt. Ram Janki Bai being incompetent but remanded the case of Mool Chand for fresh hearing. Mool, Chand and Smt. Ram Janki Bai assailed the judgment of the RAA by filing two separate revision petitions before the Board of Revenue Ajmer (for short the Board). The Board vide common judgment dated December 17, 1977 dismissed the revision petitions. Review petition preferred by Mool Chand was also dismissed on September 18, 1980. The petitioner Mool Chand and Smt. Ram Janki Bai have now assailed the aforequoted orders of the Authorised Officer, the RAA and the Board in the instant writ petitions. 2. It also appears from the material on record that the petitioner Mool Chand made an application on May 7, 1976 before the RAA under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking production of as many as' ten documents consisting of certified copies of the judgments and relevant revenue record. The RAA vide order dated June 11, 1976 rejected the application on the ground that no reasonable explanation could be given for delayed production of the documents. 3. Mr. Gopal Garg learned counsel for the petitioner Mool Chand canvassed that Bala Bux died in 1970 and some of his legal representatives were not brought on record. Kalyan Mal, the major son of Bala Bux died in the life time of Bala Bux leaving behind his wife Smt. Ram Janki Bai. When after the death of Bala Bux his major son Mool Chand and Brij Mohan son of Gujarmal were brought on record, Smt. Ram Janki Bai also ought to have been impleaded as legal representative of late Bala Bux. When after the death of Bala Bux his major son Mool Chand and Brij Mohan son of Gujarmal were brought on record, Smt. Ram Janki Bai also ought to have been impleaded as legal representative of late Bala Bux. It was further contended that though recognition was given to Ayodhya Bai and Ganga Bai but the courts below had seriously erred in rejecting the mutation which was sanctioned in favour of Moo] Chand and Om Prakash in the year 1967. The courts below had also committed error in rejecting the validity of the decrees of 1964 which were of dates prior to the coming into operation of sanction 30-D of the Old Ceiling Law. Courts below had also lost sight of the provisions contained in section 30-DD of the Old Ceiling Law, which clearly lays down that transfers in favour of sons are valid. 4. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Ram Janki Bai contended that she is widowed daughter-in-law of Bala Bux i.e. widow of the deceased Kalyan Mal. The mutation was effected in the year 1958 and the partition decree was obtained between Bala Bux and Ramjanki Bai in December 1964. This decree being prior to the appointed date i.e. April 1, 1966, it ought to have been recognised by the courts below and illegality was committed by the courts below in not recognising this partition decree. As the entire land was ancestral land and therefore the petitioner Ram Janki Bai had right to get the land partitioned. 5. Mr. N.L. Pareek, learned advocate for the respondents on the other hand contended that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to ceiling proceedings. Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act provides that for removal of doubts it is heareby declared that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law for time being in force providing for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for fixation of ceiling or for devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holding. In the present case land was held by Bala Bux which was subjected to ceiling proceedings. Therefore the sons were not having any right in the holding. In the present case land was held by Bala Bux which was subjected to ceiling proceedings. Therefore the sons were not having any right in the holding. The holding was not an ancestral one and even if it is taken for sake of arguments that land was ancestral one, even then the provisions with regard to holding ancestral property is not applicable to ceiling proceedings. Learned counsel placed reliance Sooraj v. S.D.O., (1995) 2 SCC 45 and State of Bihar v. K.M. Zuberi, ( AIR 1996 SC 1496 ) . 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and scanned the impugned judgments. 7. I shall first take up the submissions in regard to application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The RAA in the order dated June 11, 1976 while dismissing the application observed that the matter was pending before the Authorised' Officer for a period of 8 to 9 years and Brij Mohan having failed to explain satisfactorily the delayed production of the documents, was not entitled to relief under Order 41 Rule 27. The Board also affirmed this finding of the RAA. In order to properly examine these observations it will be useful to have a close look at the contextual facts of the case. Bala Bux had three sons viz. Gujar Mal, Kalyan Mal and Mool Chand. Kalyan Mal died in 1958 leaving behind his widow Smt. Ram Janki Bai. Gujar Mal also died leaving behind his widow Gulab Bai and son Brij Mohan. Bala Bux had inherited the agricultural lands from his father Gopi Lal. Authorised Officer Baran initially issued notice to Bala Bux under Rule 14 of the Old Ceiling Law. On June 1, 1973 the proceedings were dropped as New Ceiling Law came into force. However, on March 4, 1974 proceedings were initiated under the New Ceiling Act. When the death of Bala Bux came to the notice of the Authorised Officer, a report was sought from the Tehsildar Mangrol in regard to legal representatives of Bala Bux. The Tehsildar in its report stated that Moo[ Chand son of Bala Bux and Brij Mohan son of Gujar Mal were the legal representatives of late Bala Bux. Petitioner Mool Chand and Brij Mohan were thus impleaded and appeared on September 25, 1975. The petitioner Mool Chand submitted reply on March 12, 1976. The case was adjourned to March 26, 1976. Petitioner Mool Chand and Brij Mohan were thus impleaded and appeared on September 25, 1975. The petitioner Mool Chand submitted reply on March 12, 1976. The case was adjourned to March 26, 1976. The petitioner Mool Chand sought time to produce documents and evidence but the prayer of the petitioner was disallowed and the Authorised Officer decided the case on April 2, 1976. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before the RAA and made an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on May 7, 1976 stating therein that no opportunity was provided to him by the court below to produce the documents therefore he could not produce the same but the RAA dismissed the application as indicated above. 8. From the aforequoted facts it is evident that the petitioner had satisfactorily explained that proper opportunity was not provided to him to produce the documents. The petitioner was impleaded as party in the proceedings and appeared for the first time before the Authorised Officer on September 25, 1975. He submitted reply on March 12, 1976 and on March 26, 1976 sought time to produce documents but the Authorised Officer declined the prayer and decided the case on -April 2, 1976. Therefore it can not be said that the matter was pending for a period of 8 to 9 years and the petitioner was negligent in producing the documents. The petitioner Moo] Chand was required to establish that after exercise of due diligence, he could not produce the documents before the Authorised Officer and the RAA had to decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC after considering the back ground facts of the case. But the RAA and the Board did not properly appreciate the facts of the case as well as the provisions contained in order 41 Rule 27 CPC and committed illigality in passing the impugned judgments. 9. Coming to the contentions advanced on behalf of petitioner Smt. Ram Janki Bai, it may be noticed that the Authorised Officer impleaded Mool Chand and Brij Mohan in the capacity of legal representative of late Bala Bux. Mool Chand is the son and Brij Mohan is the grand son of Bala Bux. Brij Mohan represents Gujar Mal, the second son of Bala Bux but the interest of late Kalyan Mal, the third son of Bala Bux was not at all taken care of. Mool Chand is the son and Brij Mohan is the grand son of Bala Bux. Brij Mohan represents Gujar Mal, the second son of Bala Bux but the interest of late Kalyan Mal, the third son of Bala Bux was not at all taken care of. Smt. Ram Janki bai is the widow of Kalyan Mal and she ought to have been impleaded in the capacity of legal representative of late Bala Bux. 10. Mr. N.L. Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short the 1956 Act) which reads as under "(2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law for the time being in force providing for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holding or for the fixation of ceiling or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings." Section 4(2) excludes the applicability of 1956 Act to the ceiling proceedings but it does not exclude the impleadment of legal representatives of a deceased. When the opportunity of hearing was provided to Mool Chand and Brij Mohan, why it was denied to Snit. Ram Janki Bai ? The Authorised Officer acted solely on the report of Tehsildar Mangrol and without any basis denied the hearing to Smt. Ram Janki Bai, the widowed daughter in law of Bala Bux. When Mool Chand, Gujar Mal and Kalyan Mal, all the three sons of Bala Bux were his legal representatives, then as to why the Authorised Officer impleaded only Mool Chand and Brij Mohan and failed to protect the interest of Kalyan Mal though he was survived by his widow Smt. Ram Janki Bai. I do not find any merit in the arguments of Shri N.L. Pareek learned counsel. In my considered opinion mere impleadment to the proceedings does not give the party any right in the property of the deceased. It only provides opportunity of hearing. The rights of the party in the property are decided only in accordance with the law. Smt. Ram Janki Bai was therefore entitled to be impleaded as party in the ceiling proceedings and the appeal preferred by Smt. Ram Janki Bai before the RAA was competent. It only provides opportunity of hearing. The rights of the party in the property are decided only in accordance with the law. Smt. Ram Janki Bai was therefore entitled to be impleaded as party in the ceiling proceedings and the appeal preferred by Smt. Ram Janki Bai before the RAA was competent. The Board and the RAA fell into error in not properly appreciating this legal aspect of the matter. 11. For these reasons the writ petitions succeed and stand allowed, the impugned judgments of the Board of Revenue Ajmer and the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota are set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota with the directions to decide the appeals of the petitioners Mool Chand and Smt. Ram Janki Bai afresh along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in view of the observations indicated hereinabove. The parties are directed to appear before the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota on April 16, 2001. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petitions Succeed; Judgments of Raa and Revenue board set aside - Case remanded for disposal of Appeal afresh. *******