Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1055 (RAJ)

Jugraj v. State of Rajasthan

2002-05-22

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
Honble GARG, J.–This writ petition under Article 226 purporting to be u/Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, who are transferees, on 3.10.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment dated 6.9.1991 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer be quashed etc. etc. (2). It arises in the following circumstances: One Jeevraj Singh S/o Shri Shivnath Singh by caste Rajput, resident of Meda Upperla, Tehsil Jalore was having his agriculture land in village Meda Upperla and also in village Sehwaj. On coming into force of the Chapter-IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the proceedings were initiated against said jeevraj Singh and after determining his ceiling area, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jalore came to the conclusion that Jeevraj Singh had no land in excess than the ceiling area applicable to him. Therefore,. he came to the conclusion that the proceedings pertaining to the ceiling area may be dropped against him. This order was passed by the Sub Division Officer (Revenue), Jalore on 20.10.1975, a copy of which. is marked as Annex. 1. Thereafter, the State Government invoking its power under Sec.15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (here- inafter referred to as ``the Act of 1973), reopened,the case pertaining to said Jeevraj Singh by order dated 16.4.1981 and sent the matter to the Collector, jalore for reopening the matter and deciding the same afresh. A copy of the order passed by the State Government 16.4.1981 is marked as Annex.2. After receipt of the above mentioned order, notices were issued to Jeevraj Singh by the Collector, Jalore. It may be stated here that Jeevraj Singh died in the year 1977 and after him, Man Kanwar wife of Jeevraj Singh and Ratan Singh S/o Jeevraj Singh were his legal heirs. Smt. Man Kanwar also died in the year 1982. Therefore, a notice was issued to Ratan Singh by the Collector, Jalore. The proceedings before the Collector, Jalore were taken ex-parte. The Collector, Jalore decided the case of Ratan Singh ex-parte and came to the conclusion that he was having 2420 bighas of land in excess in village Meda Upperla and also the land situated in Khasra No. 273 of village Sehwaj as the surplus land. The proceedings before the Collector, Jalore were taken ex-parte. The Collector, Jalore decided the case of Ratan Singh ex-parte and came to the conclusion that he was having 2420 bighas of land in excess in village Meda Upperla and also the land situated in Khasra No. 273 of village Sehwaj as the surplus land. No option was given and no proceedings for determining the ceiling area were taken, as provided under Rules 19 and 21 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Government Rules, 1963. A copy of the order passed by the Collector, Jalore on 20.9.1984 is marked as Annex.3. It was submitted by the petitioners that the land of khasra No. 273, which was declared surplus, was purchased by the present petitioners through registered sale deed dated 7.7.1972 and, therefore, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the judgment dated 20.9.1984 passed by the Collector, Jalore on various grounds, but that appeal of the petitioners was dismissed,by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer through judgment dated 6.9.1991 (Annex. 4) holding inter-alia that the purchasers had no right to file appeal . Aggrieved from the said judgment dt. 6.9.1991 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, this writ petition has been filled. by the petitioners. (3). In this petition, the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 6.9.1991 (Annex.4) has been challenged on various grounds as mentioned in para No. 6 of the writ petition and one of the grounds taken by the petitioners is that the Board of Revenue through impugned judgment Annex. 4 dated 6.9.1991 should have not dismissed the appeal as being not maintainable as the purchasers were aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 23 of the Act of 1973 and, therefore, the Board of Revenue should have decided the, appeal of petitioners on merits instead of throwing it on the ground of being not maintainable. (4). On the other hand, the respondents supported the impugned judgment dated 6.9.1991 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. (5). I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. (6). From perusing the impugned judgment Annex. 4 dated 6.9.1991 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer, it appears that the petitioners filed appeal under Section 23 of the Act of 1973. (5). I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. (6). From perusing the impugned judgment Annex. 4 dated 6.9.1991 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer, it appears that the petitioners filed appeal under Section 23 of the Act of 1973. It further appears that the Board of Revenue has come to the conclusion that the present petitioners are transferees and from khasras No. 272 and 273, 158 bighas 10 biswas land was transferred to the present petitioners through registered sale deed dated 7.7.1972. However, the Board of Revenue held that the appeal of the present petitioners was not maintainable because a transferee had no locus standi to file appeal and thus, the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal of the petitioners as not maintainable. (7). In my considered opinion, the findings of the Board of Revenue that the transferee had no locus standi to fine appeal cannot be accepted because of the following reasons: (1) That the petitioners filed appeal under Section 23 of the Act of 1973 before. the Board of Revenue. For convenience, sub clause (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 1973 is quoted here: ``23. Appeals.–(1) The State Government or any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Authorised Officer under sub-section(3) of Section 12 or (sub-section (3) of Section 11-B) or under sub-section (3) of Section 19 or under the Section 21 may, within thirty days of the date of decision or order, appeal to the Collector of the concerned district against such decision or order. Thus, Section 23 of the Act of 1973 clearly provides that any person aggrieved can file an appeal. Who is an aggrieved person? The expression ``aggrieved person denotes an elastic, and to some extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioners interest, and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by them. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioners interest, and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by them. Courts have some times put a restricted and sometimes a wide construction on the expression ``aggrieved person. Generally speaking, a person can be said to be aggrieved by an order which is to his detriment, pecuniary or otherwise or cause him some prejudice in one form or other. A person aggrieved has been understood to mean one ``who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest. In the words of James, L.J. Sidebothem, Re: (4): ``The words ``person aggrieved do not really mean to man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A ``person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision had been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived , him of something or wrongfully refused `him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. In the light of the above observations, the present case is being examined. In this case, the present petitioners got possession of the [and in dispute through registered sale deed dated 7.7.1972, therefore, in no manner they can be said to be trespassers and whether they have legal right or not over the disputed land is a question which should be decided on merits and not by saying that they had no right to appeal. When the petitioners are purchasers and their right, which they acquired through registered sale deed, was directly affected by the order of the Collector, Jalore dated 20.9.1984 (Annex.3), therefore, they should have been considered ``aggrieved persons and were entitled to file appeal under Section 23 of the Act of 1973. Whether the petitioners have any case on merits or not is another matter and,it is for the Board of Revenue to decide this aspect looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the prevailing law. (2) That this Court in Smt. Panna Bala & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Whether the petitioners have any case on merits or not is another matter and,it is for the Board of Revenue to decide this aspect looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the prevailing law. (2) That this Court in Smt. Panna Bala & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1) has held that the Board of Revenue should have not dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners of th-at case had no focus standi, but should have gone into the merits of the case and should have converted the appeal into a petition under Sec.221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. (3) That the powers of the Board of Revenue have been dealt with by the Honble Supreme Court in Devi Singh vs. Board of Revenue (2) in the following manner: ``We view it with surprise the approach of the Board of Revenue. Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides vesting a general power of superintendence and control in Board over all Revenue Courts and all such courts as are subordinate thereto. Besides that provision there are provisions beginning with Section 222 upto Section 228 which provide for appeals and the manner in which they need be presented in the form given therein and the,Board of Revenue is one such. Section 229, inter alia, thereafter provides that subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Board of its own motion or on the application of a party to suit or proceeding may review and may rescind, alter or confirm any decree or order made by itself or by any of its members. In the fact of these provisions it is not understandable how could the Board exercise power of General Superintendence under Section 221 of the act for it had before- hand in exercise of its appellate powers confirmed the decree of the trial court i.e. of the Assistant Collectors Court. In view of the above observations of the Honble Supreme Court, it is clear that powers can be exercised where no other remedy is available. It may be stated here that the. In view of the above observations of the Honble Supreme Court, it is clear that powers can be exercised where no other remedy is available. It may be stated here that the. Board of Revenue being the highest tribunal for all revenue matters, general superintendence and control over all revenue courts is vested in the Board of Revenue and for all practical purposes such courts are subordinate to the Board of Revenue, so that jus- tice upto the highest. level may be available. The Board of Revenue has the general power of superintendence and control over all the subordinate courts. Thus, from this point of view also, since Board of Revenue is the highest tribunal for all revenue matters and the Board of Revenue has general power of superintendence and control over all the acts done by the Collectors, therefore, the Board of Revenue should have scrutinized the order passed by the Collector, Jalore on merits instead of dismissing the appeal of the petitioners as not maintainable. (4) That no doubt in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kesa vs. The State of Rajasthan (3), the transferee is not entitled to notice even on the basis of principles of natural justice also, but, it does not mean that he cannot put his grievance before any authority and in may considered opinion, he should,. be allowed to put up his grievances atleast before the Board of Revenue, which is the highest tribunal for all revenue matters. (5) That the questions whether the sale deed is valid or not according to law prevailing on that day or whether by sale deed legal right has been accrued in favour of the petitioners or not or whether sale deed is in direct breach of the Act and Rules prevailing at that time, are such questions which cannot be gone into and decided for the first time by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of ]India and at) such questions should have been first decided by some other authority or forum and not by the High Court. From this point of view also, the Board of Revenue being highest tribunal in deciding such matters should decide all such questions. Therefore, the petitioners had a cause in their favour to approach the Board of Revenue for just adjudication of such matters by the Board of Revenue. From this point of view also, the Board of Revenue being highest tribunal in deciding such matters should decide all such questions. Therefore, the petitioners had a cause in their favour to approach the Board of Revenue for just adjudication of such matters by the Board of Revenue. In case such matters are not decided by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons and this Court also holds the view that such matters cannot be. gone into and decided for the first time by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would lead to a situation that the petitioners would be condemned being unheard. This is not the intention of the Legislature or law. From this point of view also, the Board of Revenue should have entertained the appeal of the petitioners and decided on merits instead of dismissing it as not maintainable. (8). For the reasons stated above, the judgment dt.6.9.91 (Annex. 4) passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 6.9.1991 (Annex. 4) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer with a direction to decide the appeal of the petitioners afresh on merits `in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all submissions before the Board of Revenue.