Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1925 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-29

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2006
Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa J.-By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 28.04.1983 (Annexure-1) in a ceiling proceedings passed by the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran, Judgment dated 212.1988 (Annexure-2) and the order dated 23.01.1989 (Annexure-3), passed in appeal and review petition respectively by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the order dated 28.04.1983 of the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran was upheld. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the present proceedings are arising out under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Hondings Act, 1973 (herein after referred to as the New Ceiling Act, 1973). The said proceedings were dropped against the petitioner by the ACM-cum-Authorised Officer, Baran vide his Judgment dated 20.02.1976 and the same were ordered to be reopened by the State Government vide its order dated 11.02.1980/18.02.1980 under Section 15(1) of the New Ceiling Act, 1973 and a direction was issued to the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran to deicide the case under the New Ceiling Law, afresh. The additional Collector (Revenue), Baran served a notice on the petitioner, who submitted his reply and after hearing both the parties, the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran vide its Judgment dated 28.04.1983, held that 213 bighas and 1 biswas of the land held by the petitioner was equivalent to 85.22 acres. Out of the land, 60 bighas and 10 biswas of the land equivalent to 24.20 acres of land was capable of growing two crops in a year and the remaining 152 bighas and 11 biswas of the land equivalent to 61.02 acres of land was also capable of growing two crops in a year. After converting the above land into the land capable of growing one crop in a year, the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran came to the conclusion that in all the petitioner held 97.32 ordinary acres of land which is capable of growing one crop in a year. Since the petitioner was entitled to hold land for 3 units of himself and his two major sons, namely, Hari Om and Vishnu Kumar, the Additional Colloector (Revenue), Baran came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to retain 81 acres of land and 16.32 acres of land was declared surplus. 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran in the same proceedings also, reopened the case of the petitioner under the Old Ceiling Law also and decided the same. 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran in the same proceedings also, reopened the case of the petitioner under the Old Ceiling Law also and decided the same. In appeal, filed by the petitioner, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide its Judgment dated 212.1988, set-aside the part decision of the Old Ceiling Law and upheld the Judgment so far as it relates to the New Ceiling Law, which is being impinged in this case, The petitioner filed a review petition without success. 4. The case of the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Baran as well the Revenue Board was that the determination of the ceiling area made by the authorities on the basis of the land under assured irrigation capable of growing two crops in a year, has been made without seeking any report from the Committee, as required under Rule 4-A and 5 as well other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 (herein after referred to as the New Ceiling Rules, 1973). The further case of the petitioner is that there is apparently a calculation mistake, which is liable to be rectify. 5. The State Government has filed reply to the writ petition and stated that the calculation of irrigated land capable of growing two crops and single crop is in the proportion of 1:1-1/2. It is also the case of the State that the land in question is situated in Chambal Command Area in village Mangrol, therefore, the ceiling area has been rightly determined and further there is no calculation mistake. 6. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional Collector (Revenue) Baran as well the Board of Revenue, Ajmer has not disclosed the basis of calculation for the purpose of determination of ceiling area and further there is no finding to the effect that the calculation of land capable of growing two crops in a year is equivalent to land capable of growing one crop in a year, is in accordance with Rule 4-A and 5 of the New Ceiling Rules, 1973. In support of the aforesaid submission, the Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Para no. 7 of the Judgment of Mst. In support of the aforesaid submission, the Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Para no. 7 of the Judgment of Mst. Ram Kanwari vs. State of Raj., reported in 1985 RRD 143 and on the issue of irrigated land, placed reliance on Para No. 19 of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Pratap & 3 Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in 1988 (2) RLR 520. 7. The submission of the Counsel for the State is that the determination of the ceiling area is in accordance with law and report of the Committee is not mandatory. Both the orders passed by the Revenue Board are in accordance with law. 8. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions made by the parties. 9. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to quote the relevant Rules 4-A and 5 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973, which are as under:-4A. Constitution of Committee.-The State Government shall, by notification in the official gazette, constitute a committee for each (tehsil) in the State for performing the functions of the Committee under these rules:- .(1) Provided that until a notification is issued under this sub-section, the Committee shall consist of- .(a) The members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly in whose constituency the land is situate; .(b) The Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction; .(c) The Sarpanch of the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction; .(d) The Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction; .(e) Aperson belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe nominated by the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction from among its member; and .(f) The Tehsildar having jurisdiction. .(2) The committee shall consist of the following members, namely:- .(a) An Officer not below the rank of a Tehsildar appointed by the State Government, who shall be the Secretary of the Committee; .(b) Not more than 12 members nominated by the State Government. .(3) The procedure to be followed by the committee in the performance of its functions under this Act shall, unless a different procedure has been prescribed in these rules, be such as may be decided by the committee. .(3) The procedure to be followed by the committee in the performance of its functions under this Act shall, unless a different procedure has been prescribed in these rules, be such as may be decided by the committee. .(4) The quorum to constitute a meeting of the Committee shall be of three members: .Provided that until a notification is issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4-A, the quorum to constitute a meeting of committee shall be two. .(5) TheState Government may from time to time reconstitute the committee if it considers it necessary so to do in the public interest or may fill any casual vacancy of a member by nomination. 5 Verification of the returns.-(1) The Authorised Officer shall, within one month of the receipt of return furnished by a person under section 10 or section 11, forward a copy of the return to the Tensildar of the tehsil in which the land is situated for verification from the land records and other Tehsil revenue records about the correctness of the particulars furnished in the return including the correctness of particular about the:- .(a) Land under assured irrigation capable of growing at least two crops in a year; .(b) Land under assured irrigation capable of growing at least one crop in year and, other lands not within categories specified in Clauses (a) and (b) above. .(2) The Tehsildar shall verify the correctness of the Particulars from the land records and other Tehsil revenue records and then submit his report to the Committee. The Committee shall after making such enquiry, as it may deem necessary send its reports to the Authorised Officer and] .(3) TheAuthorised officer shall, on receipt of the report from the [committee] and after such further enquiry as he may deem necessary to make from other sources including from the Irrigation Department of the Government, determine the question whether any land is assured of irrigation from Government, or private source capable of growing two crops or one crop in year or not in the following manner:- .(a) Wherethe land falls within the command area of a major irrigation project the aforesaid question shall be decided on the basis of the extent of intensity of irrigation available to the land in the year immediately preceding the year in which the question is required to be decided. The land to the extent of irrigation intensity shall be deemed to be the land having assured irrigation capable of growing two crops or one crop in a year as the case may be and the rest of the land shall be deemed to be dry land:-[Provided that where the land has not been irrigated in the year immediately proceeding the year in which the question is required to be decided and is ready for irrigation or has been irrigated in the current year, the intensity of irrigation shall be calculated as per designed irrigation available to the land.] .(b) Wherethe land is irrigated from a major or medium irrigation project or from other Government Source or from lift irrigation from a perennial source, on that area of land which has actually grown two crops or one crop in a year during two years out for the proceed three years shall respectively be deemed to be land having assured irrigation capable of growing two crops or one in a year. .(c) Land not falling within Sub-clause (a) or Sub-clause (b) shall be deemed to be dry land." 10. The relevant portion of Para No. 7 of the Judgment of Mst. Ram Kanwari vs State of Raj. (Supra), cited by the Counsel for the petitioner, is as follows:-"7. The Rajasthan Imposition of ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 (for short, the Rules of 1973) have been framed. Under Rule 4-A of the Rules of 1973 the State Government has to constitute a committee for each tehsil in State to perform the functions of the committee under the rules. Until a notification is issued as aforesaid constituting a committee the committee has to consist of the persons as contained in Sub-rule (a) to (f) of Rule 4-A of the Rules of 1973. Until a notification is issued as aforesaid constituting a committee the committee has to consist of the persons as contained in Sub-rule (a) to (f) of Rule 4-A of the Rules of 1973. After the return under Section 10 and 11 of the new ceiling law has been filed before the authorised officer, he had to forward a copy of it to the Tehsildar of the Tehsil in which the land is situated for verification from the land-record and other tehsil revenue record about the correctness of the particulars furnished in the return including the correctness of the particulars about (a) the land under assured irrigation capable of growing at least two crops in a year, (b) land under assured irrigation capable of growing at least one crop in year; and other lands not within categories specified in Clauses (a) and (b) above as required under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rule of 1973. Under Sub-rule (2) of rule; the Tehsildar shall verify the correctness of the particulars from the land records and other tehsil revenue records and then submit his report to the Committee. The Committee thereafter making such inquiry as it may deem necessary send its report to the authorised officer. The authorised officer thereafter making such further inquiry as he may deem fit necessary, determine the question whether any land is assured of irrigation from Government or private source capable of growing two crops or one crop in a year or not in the manner as provided in Sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1973. Whether the land is assured of two crops in a year or one crop in a year will depend on the intensity of the irrigation of land within a major irrigation project area, under Sub-rule (3)(b) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1973. Where the land is irrigated from a minor irrigation project or from other Government source or from lift irrigation from a perennial source, only that area of land which has actually grown two crops or one crop in a year during two years out of the preceding three years shall respectively be deemed to be land having assured irrigation capable of growing two crops or one in a year. Land not falling within Sub-clause (a) or Sub-clause (b) shall be deemed to be dry land. Land not falling within Sub-clause (a) or Sub-clause (b) shall be deemed to be dry land. Therefore as to whether the land is assured of two crops in a year or one crop in a year will depend on an inquiry as aforesaid. No such inquiry appears to have been made. There is neither any report of the Tehsildar nor of the Committee. There is no material that assuming that the land falls in Chambal command area, it was nahari". (Emphasis supplied) 11. A bare perusal of both the Judgment s i.e. the Judgment s of Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, would reveal that on what basis calculation of land capable of growing two crops in a year is equivalent to land capable of growing one crop in a year has been made, has not been disclosed. The State Government also in its reply, has not referred the method of calculation. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner has force that the report of the Committee was not sought and other relevant factors have not been considered by the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran, while determining the ceiling area. 12. In my view, the Additional collector (Revenue), Baran ought to have sought the report of the Tehsildar alongwith the report of the Committee, of which Tehsildar is the Secretary as well as further consider the other relevant factors. There is no mention at all of consideration of any of the relevant factors except the ratio method disclosed by the State Government in its reply i.e. 1:1-1/2. Thus, there is no material on record to show that on what basis the land has been held to be a land of assured irrigation capable of growing two crops in a year. I further approve the Judgment of the Board of Revenue passed in the case of Mst. Ram Kanwari vs. State of Raj. (Supra). Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable. 13. As regards issuance of Notification under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, there is no such averment and further the said Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pratap & 3 Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Supra), relates to calculation of ceiling area under the old rules, therefore, the same is not applicable. 14. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Supra), relates to calculation of ceiling area under the old rules, therefore, the same is not applicable. 14. In view of the above, the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioners are accepted as indicated above and the submissions of the Counsel for the respondents are rejected. 15. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed in the following manner:- .(1) The Judgment dated 28.04.1983 (Annexure-1) passed by the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran, Judgment dated 212.1988 (Annexure-2) and the order dated 23.01.1989 (Annexure-3), passed in appeal and review petition respectively by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer are quashed and set-aside. .(2) The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector (Revenue), Baran to make fresh determination of the ceiling area as per Rules 4-A and 5 of the New Ceiling Rules, 1973 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.