Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2267 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Dhanwant Kaur

2013-12-13

AMITAVA ROY, P.K.LOHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the respondent/petitioner was allowed and the judgment dated 19.12.1989 rendered by the learned Board of Revenue was annuled. 2. The brief facts necessary for unearthing the Us involved in the matter are that proceedings under Chapter II1-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (For short Act of 1955) were initiated against the respondent/petitioner and later on those proceedings were dropped by a order dated 1.10.1971, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rai Singhnagar. The Sub Divisional Officer, Rai Singhnagar in its order dated 1.10.1971 concluded in clear and unequivocal terms that the respondent/petitioner is not holding agricultural land beyond the prescribed ceiling limits. Subsequently, Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (For short Act of 1973) came in offing and on promulgation of the Act of 1973, the ceiling case of the respondent/petitioner was ordered to be reopened by the State Government, by an order dated 10.9.1976. After reopening the ceiling case of the respondent/petitioner, the competent authority by its order dated 28.2.1979 passed a verdict that the respondent/petitioner is owning/holding 28.17 Bighas of land in excess to the prescribed ceiling limits. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, the respondent/petitioner laid a revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned Board of Revenue by its order dated 18.9.1979 accepted the revision petition and remitted the case back to the learned Additional Collector for deciding it afresh in terms of the Act of 1973, as well as under Chapter III-B of the Act of 1955 separately and also ordered that proceedings to be undertaken under the Act of 1973 and under the Chapter III-B of the Act of 1955 be decided by separate orders. After the remand order, the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar by its order dated 10.5.1985 dropped the proceedings against the respondent/petitioner in Ceiling Case No. 20/1976 by concluding that the transfers made by the petitioner/respondent are bona fide. While adverting to the proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Act of 1955 the same were also dropped by the Additional Collector by its order of the even date. 4. While adverting to the proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Act of 1955 the same were also dropped by the Additional Collector by its order of the even date. 4. The order dated 10.5.1985 passed by the Additional Collector pertaining to the ceiling case of the respondent petitioner under the Act of 1973 was challenged by the State by way of filing an appeal under Section 23(2-A) of the Act of 1973. However, the order passed by the Additional Collector, whereby the proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Act of 1955 were dropped against the respondent/petitioner, was not questioned by the State. When the proceedings were undertaken by the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar after remand the respondent/petitioner assed away and her legal representative i.e. the present respondent was brought on record and consequently in the appeal preferred by the State in place of the original land owner Smt. Basant Kaur, her legal representative Dhanvant Kaur was arrayed as respondent. The appeal came up before the learned Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 19.12.1989 accepted the appeal of the State and set at naught the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Sri Ganganagar. The learned Board of Revenue in its verdict dated 19.12.1989 found that the respondent petitioner is owning/holding the land measuring 19.5 Bighas in excess to the prescribed ceiling limits and, therefore, ordered for its resumption. 5. The learned Single Judge while examining the crucial issue relating to the, alleged sale transaction which was precisely the bone of contention for the order of resumption has found that the execution of the sale transaction has taken place on 21.12.1969, and the document to this effect has also been registered on 1.6.1971 i.e. prior to coming into force of the Act of 1973, which has in-fact came into operation form 28.3.1973. While taking note of the sale transaction and subsequent execution of the registered sale deed the learned Single Judge has finally concluded that the sale transaction was bonafide and the same cannot be categorized as sham to defeat the purpose of the Act of 1973. With these observations, the learned Single Judge set aside the judgment rendered by the learned Board of Revenue. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. With these observations, the learned Single Judge set aside the judgment rendered by the learned Board of Revenue. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. G.R. Punia has argued that the learned Single Judge has not examined the matter in right perspective and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned verdict of the learned Single Judge has submitted that the learned Single Judge has examined the matter in its entirety and thereafter has recorded a definite conclusion that the sale transaction was bona fide. With these submissions, Mr. Sandhu, learned Counsel for the respondent would urge that no interference with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is called for in this intra Court appeal. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in recording its conclusion that the sale transaction was bonafide and there was no semblance of proof that the transaction was intending to thwart the rigor of the Act of 1973. Moreover, in view of the fact that the sale transaction related back to 21.12.1969 and the registered sale deed was also executed on 1.6.1971, apparently the said transaction cannot have any nexus with the Act of 1973, which has came into force with effect of 28.3.1973. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge and no interference with the same is warranted in this intra Court appeal. 9. Resultantly, the present appeal is bereft of any merit and devoid office and the same is accordingly dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******