Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 40 (RAJ)

State of Raj. v. Indian Oil Corpn.

2003-01-09

H.R.PANWAR, N.N.MATHUR

body2003
Honble Mathur, J.–We have heard Mr. C.L. Jain, learned counsel for the State and Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent. (2). At the outset, it may be pointed out that appeal is barred by limitation of 480 days. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed supported by the affidavit of Shri Govind Singh Deora, Tehsildar, Pindwara. It is averred that copy of the order dated 17.9.1999 was received in his office on 25.10.1999 from the counsel appearing for the State and the same was sent to the Collector, Sirohi on 6.11.1999 who in turn after examining the case ordered for filing the appeal on 21.2.2000. Thereafter, the panel lawyer was contacted. For certain reasons, the case was thereafter entrusted to Shri C.L. Jain, Panel Lawyer who presented the appeal on 17.2.2001. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the papers were retained by the Collector for a period of 6.11.1999 to 21.2.2000 i.e., for more than 3 & 1/2 months. Papers were entrusted to the counsel on 2.6.2000 but the appeal was filed as late as on 17.2.2001. There is no explanation for retaining the papers with the counsel for more than eight months. (3). We have also examined the merits of the case. The respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited set up an ambitious pipe line project from Sayala-Mathura for Transportation of oil. This pipe line passes through the States of M.P., Rajasthan and Gujarat. The subject land measuring 1 bighas and 8 biswas was purchased by the corporation as back as in the year 1980-81 from the private land owners for a total sum of Rs. 1,250/- as per the market rate prevailing at that time. It is averred that land in question is wholly undeveloped and is in jungle which is three kilometers away from Pindwara (District Sirohi). However, an objection was raised by the Tehsildar, Pindwara that since the land in question was purchased from a person belonging to SC/ST caste, there was a violation of Sections 42 & 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and as such the land could not be soldto any other person except to the person of the same caste. However, an objection was raised by the Tehsildar, Pindwara that since the land in question was purchased from a person belonging to SC/ST caste, there was a violation of Sections 42 & 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and as such the land could not be soldto any other person except to the person of the same caste. However, as the land was urgently required for Miscrowave Repeater Station, the corporation agreed to surrender the said land to the Government on the condition that same would be reallotted to it on reasonable price. However, the State Government fixed the price of the subject land at the rate applicable to the residential land i.e. at Rs. 40/- per Sq. Ft. and accordingly, the State Government raised a demand of Rs. 15,24,600.80. This was protested by the corporation. It appears that there has been some correspondence between the corporation and the State Government which led the State Government to take decision to reduce the price of the land from Rs. 40/- per Sq. Ft. to Rs. 20/- per Sq. Ft. Thus, the demand was raised for a sum of Rs. 7,62,300/-. The corporation challenged the said decision of the State Government by way of writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge directed the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Gr. IV), Jaipur to decide the matter afresh in the light of the letter dated 6.7.1989 by which certain stipulations were made by the State Government. 7,62,300/-. The corporation challenged the said decision of the State Government by way of writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge directed the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Gr. IV), Jaipur to decide the matter afresh in the light of the letter dated 6.7.1989 by which certain stipulations were made by the State Government. For the convenience, the aforesaid letter 6.7.1989 is extracted as follows:- ^^jktLFkku ljdkj** dk;kZy; dysDVj fljksgh dzekad i- 12¼B½¼48½ jkt- ¼86½ 3392 fnukad 6-7-1989 izsf"kr mikklu lfpo jktLo ¼xzqi 4½ foHkkx jktLFkku] t;iqj fo"k; % ekbZdzksoso fjiksVZj LVsku fi.MokM+k ftyk fljksgh gsrq vkcknh Hkwfe dh dher olwyhA izlax % vkidk i= dzekad 4¼38½ jkt- ¼4½ 8 fnukad 22-5-1988- egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr vkids izklafxd i= ds lanHkZ esa okafNr lwpuk fuEu izdkj izsf"kr gS%& 1- Hkwfe dh fdLe ojlkyh izFkeA 2- Hkwfe vkcknh oxhZd`r ugha gSA 3- ;g Hkwfe uxjh vkcknh {ks= ds vFkok bldh ,d fdyksehVj dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrh gSA 4- ;g Hkwfe xzkeh.k {ks= dh vkcknh Hkwfe ugha gSA 5- ;g Hkwfe jktdh; d`f"k] xSj eqefdu flok;pd vkfn Js.kh dh ugha gSA 6- ekbZdzksoso fjiksVZj LVsku dh LFkkiuk o"kZ 1981 es dh xbZ FkhA 7- LFkkiuk ds le; jk- Hkwfe ds vkl-ikl d`f"k cjlkyh dh izpfyr cktkj nj :i;s 2000@& iz- ch?kk o vkcknh Hkwfe dh :- 31 izfroxZ QwV FkhA bl Hkwfe ds vkl-ikl dksbZ okf.kfT;d Hkwfe ugha gSA 8- fjiksVZj LVsku fi.MokM+k jktLFkku Hkw-jktLo uxjh; {ks=ksa esa d`f"k Hkwfe dk vkoklh; ,oa okf.kfT;d iz;kstukFkZ :ikUrjA fu;e 1981 ds rgr oxZ la[;k 5 esa vkrk gS ftlesa ,d gh tksu gS vkSj bldk ifjorZu kqYd lkekU; nj ls 7 :i;s izfroxZ xt gS ysfdu ;g Hkwfe dLcs ls 3 fdyksehVj nwj gksus ls blesa vFkok ifjf/kxzke esa ugha vkrh gSA 9- ;g Hkwfe vfodflr gS rFkk vfodflr Hkwfe dh nj :i;s 3000@& izfr ch?kk o fodflr Hkwfe dh nj 10000 izfr ch?kk gSA Hkonh; dysDVj fljksgh dzekad % i-912¼3½¼48½ jkt- ¼86½ 3392-93 izfrfyfi rglhynkj fi.MokM+k dks muds i= dzekad jktLo 89¼548½ fnukad 5-7-1989 ds lanHkZ esa lwpukFkZ Hksth tkrh gSA dysDVj fljksgh** (4). The Division Bench by order dated 6.9.2002 directed the State Government to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge and place before the Court the calculation as per the decision of the State Government dated 6.7.1989. The calculation has been made and the same has been placed on the record as Annexure RC-2. The Division Bench by order dated 6.9.2002 directed the State Government to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge and place before the Court the calculation as per the decision of the State Government dated 6.7.1989. The calculation has been made and the same has been placed on the record as Annexure RC-2. The said Annexure dated 18.10.2002 addressed to the Maintenance Manager, Indian Oil Corporation is extracted as follows:- ^^jktLFkku ljdkj** dk;kZy; rglhynkj ¼rjkys½ fi.MokM+k dzekad@Vh vkj ,@2002-2002@307-11 fnukad 18-00-2002 esUVsusUl eSustj bf.M;u vkW;y dksjiksjsku fyfeVsM lyk;k eFkqjk ikbZi ykbZu lsUnM+k ¼ftyk ikyh½ fo"k; % ekStk fi.MokM+k esa fLFkr ekbZdzksoso fjlhoj LVsku gsrq vkoafVr Hkwfe dh jkfk tek djkus ckcrA mi;ZqDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd Jheku~ ftyk dysDVj egksn; fljksgh ds i= dzekad i-12¼3½¼48½@jkt- 86@6170 fnukad 16-10-2002 ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ,l-ch- lhfoy fjV ihfVku la- 5042@90 fu.kZ; fnukad 17-9-2002 ,oa Mh-ch- flfoy vihy ua- 197@2001 fu.kZ; fnukad 6-9-2002 dh ikyuk esa vkidks jktLo foHkkx ds ifji= la- i-4¼16½ jkt-@4185 fnukad 2-3-1987 ds vuqlkj fuEu izdkj ls jde jktdks"k esa tek djokuh gS%& 1- Hkwfe dh dher 14000 2- LFkkukUrj.k kqYd 113312 3- iwathxr ewY; 60 127372 vr% vfoyEc mDr jde jktdks"k esa fu;ekuqlkj tek djok;sA ,e-Mh- rglhynkj fi.MokM+k ftyk & fljksgh dzekad@Vh-vkj-,-@2002-03 izfrfyfi fuEu dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko;d dk;Zokgh gsrq%& ¼1½ Jheku~ ftyk dysDVj egksn;] fljksgh dks fHktok dj fuosnu gS fd Jheku~ ds i= dzekad i-12¼3½ jkt- 86@6170 fngukad 16-10-2002 dh ikyuk esa jkfk 127372@& dh ekax dk;eh jk-ys-la- ls i`"B ¼2½ o"kZ 2002-03 ij dj yh xbZ gS iwoZ esa blh ifjizs{; eas dk;e ekax 762300@& dh [kkjth gsrq Jheku~ dks i= dzekad Vh-vkj-,-@99@2702 fnukad 6-12-1999 ls fuosnu ,oa Vh-vkj-,-@2003-03@133 fnukad 26-8-2002 ls iqu% fuosnu fd;k x;k Fkk vc pwafd ekax u;s fljs ls dk;e djok nh xbZ gS blfy, iwoZ dh ekax ds [kkjth vknsk fHktokus dh d`ik djkosA ¼2½ iVokjh gYdk fi.MokMk izFke dks fHktok dj ys[k gS fd mDrkuqlkj jkfk dh ekax dk;eh jk-ys-la-2 ds i`"B ¼2½ o"kZ 2002-03 esa dj nh xbZ gS vr% viuh <kyckaN esa Hkh ekax dk;e dj lR;kiu Vh-vkj-,- ls djokos ,oa olwyh dk;Zokgh djsaA ¼3½ vfrfjDr izfr fof/k kk[kk dysDVj dk;kZy; fljksghA ¼4½ jktLo fyfid dk;kZy; gktk dks fHktok dj ys[k gS fd Jheku~ ftyk dysDVj egksn; fljksgh ds i= dzekad i- 12¼3½¼48½ jkt-@86@6170 fnukad 16-10-2002 ds dze esa vkids Lrj ij dh tkus okyh ikyuk dj lwpuk Vh-vkj-,- kk[kk dks nsosaA ,l-Mh- rglhynkj fi.MokM+k ftyk fljksgh ¼jkt-½** (5). The Apex Court in P.K. Ramchandran vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1), has held that law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. In view of this we are not satisfied that there exists any sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing appeal. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. However, while rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have also taken into consideration the fact that calculation has been made as per the circular of the State Government dated 18.10.2002 and now the demand has been raised only for Rs. 1,27,372/-. At this stage, it is submitted by Mr. C.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the State that the calculation was made in view of the interim order of this Court. It was unfair on the part of the State Government to take such plea. We may also say that this Court in Gaushala Sri Karanpu vs. State of Ors. (2), has taken the view that the sale by member of Scheduled Caste to juristic person is not hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act reads as follows:– ``42. General Restrictions on Sale, Gift and Bequest.–The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void if:– (a). . . . . . .deleted w.e.f. 11.11.1992. (b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a number of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. (bb) such sale, gift or bequest, notwithstanding anything contained in Cl.(b), is by a member of Saharia Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the said Saharia Tribe. (6). It goes without saying that though the India Oil Corporation is a juristic person but it does not have a caste. (bb) such sale, gift or bequest, notwithstanding anything contained in Cl.(b), is by a member of Saharia Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the said Saharia Tribe. (6). It goes without saying that though the India Oil Corporation is a juristic person but it does not have a caste. Thus, the sale in favour of Indian Oil Corporation by a member of Scheduled Caste is not covered by the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Thus, taking into totality of the facts and circumstances, we feel that it is not a fit case where the delay of 480 days should be condoned. The special appeal is rejected.