Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 990 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. Revenue Board of Raj.

2002-05-14

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
Honble GARG, J.–This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, who are ten in number and the petitioners No.1/1 and 1/2 are the LRs of original petitioner no.1 Shankarlal, against the respondents on 16.1.87 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 5.12.1986 (Ex.3) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the review petition be quashed and all other orders passed by the Revenue Authorities prior to that order Ex.3 be also quashed. (2). It arises in the following circumstances : One Shambhu Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) had granted pattas of certain agricultural lands on the dates mentioned in Schedule-A, which is a part of this writ petition, to the petitioners as well as forefathers of the petitioners, who had subsequently executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of various khasras of land as mentioned in Schedule-A and he land in dispute was mutated in favour of the petitioners on the date mentioned in Schedule-A much before 1.4.1966. During the ceiling proceeding,s which were initiated against the deceased Shambhu Singh, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilwara passed an order on 31.7.1971 (Ex.1) by which he found 116 standard acres of land, out of 147 standard acres of land, in excess of the ceiling limit to be acquired from the deceased Shambhu Singh and he further came to the conclusion that the said excess land should vest in the State. However, the case of the petitioners is that before passing the order Ex.1 dated 31.7.1971, no notice as required under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Government Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Rules of 1963) was given to the petitioners, who were recorded as tenants in the Revenue Record. According to the petitioners, it was obligatory on the part of the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue notice to the petitioners before passing the order Ex.1 dated 31.7.1971, as they were tenants of that land and registered owners. It may be stated here that the present petitioners are those persons to whom the deceased Shambhu Singh sold land through registered sale deeds, the details of which are mentioned in Schedule-A appended to the writ petition and all the transactions took place before 1/12/1969. It may be stated here that the present petitioners are those persons to whom the deceased Shambhu Singh sold land through registered sale deeds, the details of which are mentioned in Schedule-A appended to the writ petition and all the transactions took place before 1/12/1969. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31.7.1971 (Ex.1), the deceased Shambhu Singh preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, but the same as dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide order dated 29.7.1975. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to afford an opportunity of option to deceased Shambhu Singh. It was submitted by the petitioners that thereafter, deceased Shambhu Singh gave his option and in fact in his option he surrendered the land in dispute which had been sold to the petitioners and was in possession of the petitioners. it was further submitted by the petitioners that the Sub-Divisional Officer called a report of the Tehsildar also and the Tehsildar in his report dated 19.1.1976 stated that the land in dispute was in possession of the tenants i.e. petitioners in whose favour the land in dispute had been mutated in the year 1963-64. Thus, it was submitted by the petitioners that on the appointed date i.e. 1.4.1966, the land in dispute did not stand in the name of the deceased shambhu Singh and, therefore, it could not be resumed. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilwara ignoring the report of the Tehsildar and also the fact that the land in dispute had been transferred in the name of the petitioners and other khatedars, passed an order on 9.3.1976 by which he held that the land including the land in dispute had vested kin the State Government. The petitioners and other persons who were aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.1976 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilwara, preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and the same was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur vide order dated 22.6.1976. Against the said order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the same was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 6.7.1979 (Ex.2). Against the said order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the same was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 6.7.1979 (Ex.2). Thereafter, the petitioners filed a review petition against the order dated 6.7.1979 (Ex.2) and they also filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 31.7.1971 (Ex.1) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilwara and both review petition as well as revision were dismissed by the board of Revenue through common judgment dated 5.12.1986 (Ex.3). It may be stated here that in review petition before the Board of Revenue, it was submitted by the petitioners that since during the ceiling proceedings no notice was given to them, therefore, the whole proceedings stood vitiated, but that plea was not found favourable by the Board of Revenue and the same was rejected. Aggrieved from the order dated 5.12.1986 (Ex.3) passed by the board of Revenue, Ajmer, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents no.1 to 4 on 9.2.1993 in which it was submitted that deceased Shambhu Singh had no right to grant pattas of the agricultural land to the petitioners and some other persons and he had not proved before the Sub-Divisional Officer that he had transferred the land and that transfers satisfied the conditions laid down in Section 30-DD of Chapter-IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Old Ceiling Law). Furthermore, the petitioners had approached the Board of Revenue and agitated the matter there, but their case was not found favourable by the Board of Revenue. The impugned order Ex.3 dated 5.12.1986 passed by the Board of Revenue dopes not suffer from any basic infirmities or illegalities and thus, no interference is called for with the same. Hence, this petition be dismissed. (3). In this petition, mainly the following two submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners:- (1) That as per rule 14 of the Rules of 1963, a notice to the transferee was also required to be given and since the Sub-Divisional Officer did not issue any notice to the petitioners, therefore, whole proceedings of ceiling stood vitiated. (2) That since the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute long back as they are owners of land in dispute through registered sale deeds and more than 30 years have passed, therefore, they should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute and for that, the petitioners sought protection from Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also sought support from the two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (1) and Tej Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) and also from unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt.Gatudi vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (3). (4). 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. Point No.1 (5). For convenience, Rule 14 of the Rules of 1963 is quoted here:- ``14. Action by Sub-Divisional Officer.–On receipt of the reports mentioned in Rule 12 and of the statements referred to in Rule 13 the Sub-Divisional Officer shall issue notice to the land holders and tenants, in Form Ceiling VII informing them of the receipt of the Tehsildars report and directing them to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, on a date to the specified, if they wish to be heard before he (Sub- Divisional Officer) determines the ceiling area applicable to each such person. If a land holder or tenant appears, he shall be given a hearing, otherwise the Sub-Divisional Officer, shall, on he basis of the Tehsildars report and such further enquiry, if any, as she may deem fit to make proceed to determine the ceiling area, inaccordance with rules 15 to 21. (6). Apart from this, as per Section 30DD of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Old Ceiling Law), transfers made upto 1st of December, 1969 were recognised. (7). The question of issuing notice to the transferee under Chapter-IIIB came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Bhera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (4) and the learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the notice to the transferee whose case falls under Section 30DD of Chapter- IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Old Ceiling Law) was required on the principle of natural justice. (8). (8). In the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (5), the Division Bench of this Court did not consider notice to the transferee necessary and also held that principles of natural justice were not attracted. (9). Since there was controversy, therefore, the matter was referred to the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesa vs. State of Rajasthan (6) and the Full Bench arrived at the conclusion that there is no provision in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Old Ceiling Law) and the Rules framed thereunder for issuing notice to the transferees. The Full Bench further came to the conclusion that Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy act, 1955 (Old Ceiling Law) and the Rules of 1963 exclude principle of natural justice and as such, the transferees cannot claim notice in ceiling proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Old Ceiling Law). (10). Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesas case (supra), nothing further can be said and I am of the view that the petitioners have no right to be heard and no notice was required to be given to them in the ceiling proceedings and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as no notice of the ceiling proceedings was given to the petitioners by the Sub- Divisional Officer, therefore, these ceiling proceedings stand vitiated, cannot be sustained. (11). The submission of issuance of notice of the petitioners in the present case, in my opinion, has become redundant or loses its significance in the manner that when the present petitioners approached the Board of Revenue and agitated the matter there, that point of issuance of notice was not found favourable by the Board of Revenue for one reason or the other and, therefore, from this point of view also, to say that on notice point they were never heard is not at all tenable. (12). Hence, on point of notice, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Point No.2 (13). (12). Hence, on point of notice, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Point No.2 (13). So far as the argument that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law as propounded by Article 300A of the Constitution of India is concerned, since in the present case whatever action was taken, that was taken by the authorities concerned, therefore, from Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. (14). However, the question is when the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute for more than 30 years, whether on that count, any relief can be given to the petitioners or not and for that, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal (supra) and Tej Singh (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Smt.Gatudi (supra). (15). In Brij Lals case (supra), which came before the Honble Supreme court from Rajasthan, the Honble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the allottee should not be dispossessed when he was cultivating said land for over a period of two decades. The Honble Supreme Court further came to the conclusion that it would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he was nourishing for over a period of two decades. Thus, the Honble Supreme court allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the judgment of this court and also of the authorities under the Rules and directed the authorities under the Rules to make permanent allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant of that case. (16). Similarly, in Tej Singhs case (supra), which also came before the Honble Supreme court from Rajasthan, on the same ground and looking to the fact that the appellant of that case was in possession of the land for 20 years, the Honble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that though the order of cancellation of allotment was valid, but set aside that order of cancellation of allotment and directed the concerned authorities not to dispossess the appellant of that case from the land in question. (17). (17). Relying on the aforesaid two judgments of the Honble Supreme court, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Gatudi (supra) held that the possession of the petitioner of that case over the land in question should not be disturbed. (18). In the present case, the petitioners are registered sale deed owners and land was sold to them by deceased Shambhu Singh from time to time and before 1/12/1969 they are in possession of the land in dispute meaning thereby they are in possession of the land in dispute for more than three decades and not only this, from the documents placed on record, it also appears that mutation had also taken place in their names because of the sale deeds made in their favour by deceased Shambhu Singh and this Court also granted stay on 1.5.1987, which was confirmed on 12.1.1993 till final disposal of the writ petition, meaning thereby the petitioners are still in possession of the land in question. (19). It may be stated here that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice, keeping in mind the principles of equity which aim to promote honesty and fair play. (20). It may further be stated here that it is open to the applicant to ask for some specific reliefs and ``such other relief as the Court may deem fit and proper and under such residuary prayer, the Court may grant an applicant the proper relief which he should get in view of changed circumstances, even though that relief may be altogether different from the specific reliefs asked for. (21). (21). Thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute for more than 30 years and keeping in mind the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Brij Lal (supra) and Tej Singh (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Gatudi (supra) and keeping in mind the principles of equity, justice and good conscience, this Court deems it fit and proper to protect the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute without setting aside the orders of the Board of Revenue and Revenue Authorities. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the respondents are directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute.