Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 822 (RAJ)

Brijkishore v. State of Rajasthan

2009-03-20

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT TIWARI, M.—All the above mentioned five similar appeals being directed against the same impugned judgments of District Collector Bundi dated 22.9.08 with the State Government through Tehsildar the landlorder as the only respondent, are taken together for decision through a common judgment- a copy of which may be placed in each of the files separately. 2. These second appeals are filed under Section 23(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973 (in short `the New Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973 (in short `the New Ceiling Act of 1973') against the impugned orders dated 22.9.08 of learned District Collector Bundi by which he returned the first appeal along with the application for grant of stay on the purported ground of want of jurisdiction. 3. The facts, in brief, leading to the second appeals are that Additional Collector, Ceiling (authorised officer) Bundi in pursuance of the order No. Pa 8(8) Raj./Gr. 8/2008 dated 26.5.08 of Dy. Secretary Revenue (Gr. 8) Government of Rajasthan initiated proceedings against the above cited appellants under the New Ceiling Act of 1973, wherein he found the appellants mentioned above holding agricultural land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed and accordingly declared certain lands specified in his orders as ceiling surplus and ordered for resumption of the same in favour of the State Government under the New Ceiling Act of 1973 by his judgment dated 30.8.08, aggrieved against which the appellants preferred appeals before the District Collector Bundi under Section 23(1) of the New Ceiling Act of 1973. But District Collector Bundi did not entertain the appeals and returned the memo of appeals along with stay application filed therewith to the appellants on the alleged ground of lack of jurisdiction and competence by his impugned orders dated 22.9.08. Hence the second appeals. 4. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties in detail in this regard. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the District Collector Bundi has disposed of five appeals under Section 23(1) of the New Ceiling Act of 1973 in just four lines holding it beyond his jurisdiction and competence without giving any reason or ground for the alleged lack of jurisdiction and competence. The learned counsel contended that the State Government by its order No. Pa 8(8) Raj./Gr. The learned counsel contended that the State Government by its order No. Pa 8(8) Raj./Gr. 8/2008 dated 26.5.08 authorised Additional Collector (Ceiling) to decide cases of the New Ceiling Act pendency in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, meaning thereby, that Additional Collector passed the impugned order dated 30.8.08 in his capacity as an authorised officer under the New Ceiling Act of 1973. A judgment of an authorised officer is appealable under Section 23(1) of the New Ceiling Act of 1973 before the Collector of concerned district only. But Collector Bundi without hearing the appellants properly and without giving any specific reason and ground treated the appeals before him without jurisdiction and returned the appeals along with stay applications by the impugned order which is not a speaking order at all. The learned counsel for the appellants pressed for acceptance of the appeals and setting aside of the impugned orders dated 22.9.08 holding the first appeals within competence and jurisdiction of the Collector Bundi. The learned counsel for the appellants has cited 1984 RLW 400 in support of his contention that Collector is competent to hear an appeal against the judgment of the authorised officer under section 23(1) of the New Ceiling Act of 1973. 6. Submitting arguments, the learned Government Advocate candidly accepted the fact that the impugned order of District Collector is a non-speaking order and does not give any reason for not treating the appeals within jurisdiction and competence. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order of District Collector Bundi and gone through the record available on the file. 8. Looking to the nature and circumstances of the case and the fact that ceiling cases like these should be decided on merit rather than on technical ground, I condone the delay and allow the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 9. Perusal of the impugned order dated 22.9.08 of District Collector Bundi shows that learned Collector Bundi has disposed of first appeals filed before him under Section 23(1) of the New Ceiling Act of 1973 by his cryptic and sketchy order comprising of four lines. He has held the appeals beyond his jurisdiction and competence without giving any reason thereof. 9. Perusal of the impugned order dated 22.9.08 of District Collector Bundi shows that learned Collector Bundi has disposed of first appeals filed before him under Section 23(1) of the New Ceiling Act of 1973 by his cryptic and sketchy order comprising of four lines. He has held the appeals beyond his jurisdiction and competence without giving any reason thereof. Though the presence of advocates of the rival parties were shown but it is not clear whether they were given any opportunity of hearing or not, as contentions, advocate by the advocates of the rival parties are not recorded and discussed. An elaborately drawn appeal of five pages along with an stay application is disposed of with casual jottings of a few lines at the back of the first page of the memo of appeal. This judgment apparently is not in accordance with the law laid down and procedure of legal practice established. 10. An issue of jurisdiction has to be decided taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned advocates of the rival parties. But in this case neither any argument of any party is recorded nor analysed; it is not even clear whether the appellants and respondent were given any opportunity of hearing on the question of jurisdiction which the learned Collector Bundi suo motu in his singular wisdom considered to be lacking. No apparent reason or ground is given for the alleged lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the impugned order of Additional Collector is an order of authorised officer the powers of which were conferred on him by the Government's order No. Pa 8(8) Raj/Gr.8/2008 dated 26.5.08 and as such the impugned order of authorised officer is appealable before Collector under Section 23(1) of the New Ceiling Act of 1973. If the learned Collector is not agreeable to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant or averments made in the memo of appeal, he must have recorded reason for his disagreement and consequent ground for want of jurisdiction. 11. The learned Collector Bundi has returned the memo of appeal to the appellants, whereas the memo of appeal can be returned to the appellants only in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 3 of the Civil 41 of the C.P.C. are not fulfilled. 11. The learned Collector Bundi has returned the memo of appeal to the appellants, whereas the memo of appeal can be returned to the appellants only in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 3 of the Civil 41 of the C.P.C. are not fulfilled. There is no provision for return of an appeal save as provided under Order 41 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. which runs as under:- "3. Rejection or amendment of memorandum.-(1) Where the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up in the manner hereinbefore prescribed, it may be rejected or be returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended within a time to be fixed by the Court or be amended then and there. (2) Where the court rejects any memorandum, it shall record the reasons for such rejection. (3) Where a memorandum of appeal is amended, the judge, or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, shall sign or initial the amendment. 12. But such, as stated above, is not the case under consideration. 13. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, an issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts. As such any decision about jurisdiction and competence by the appellate Court must conform to provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C. while pronouncing judgment in appeal. Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C. is reproduced below:- "31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.-The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state- (a) the point for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.' and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the judge or by the judges concerning therein." 14. Obviously the impugned judgment/order of learned Collector Bundi neither conforms to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C. nor to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. This is not at all a speaking order. A judgment in appeal cannot be made in a cavalier fashion dashing off a few lines with casual strokes of the pen when a substantial question of law and justice is involved. A judgment in appeal cannot be made in a cavalier fashion dashing off a few lines with casual strokes of the pen when a substantial question of law and justice is involved. An order of the appellate court, even in respect of jurisdiction must be a cogent, reasoned and speaking order. An appellate court must follow the established norms, canons and practice of appellate judgment writing even while dismissing an appeal on ground of jurisdiction. I am placing reliance in this regard on Madhukar and Ors. vs. Sangram and Ors. as reported in 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 412 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "First appeal is valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings." Also in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.Rs. [JT 2001 (2) SC 407] Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded as under:- "The judgment of the Appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind, and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the Appellate Court." 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that all the impugned judgments dated 22.9.08 hopelessly fall short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal and as such cannot be countenanced and lent support to. Resultantly, all the five appeals cited above are partially allowed and the impugned judgments/orders of 22.9.08 of the learned District Collector Bundi are set aside and the appeals are remanded to the learned Collector Bundi for passing appropriate judgment in the first appeals in accordance with the law and laid down procedure keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. I refrain from making any comment or giving any view on the merit of these appeals in any regard. Nothing stated above shall be construed to be any kind of expression of opinion on the merit of the appeals. Pronounced.