RAJA RANVIJAYSINGH Vs. SAHKARI SAMMITI OF VILLAGE MADORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is an ex -Jagirdar and his application for allotment of some unoccupied land in one of his Jagir villages was rejected by the Collector as also by the Commissioner, in first appeal, on the ground that, while the applicant applied for the land in question in the year 1957, one Chittarsingh and one Co -operative Society had applied for the game as early as 1954 and that the letters' applications were under consideration. It has been further stated in the orders of the lower Courts that since according to rule 7(3) framed under section 62 and the rules under section 101(2) of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, priority has to be given to registered Co -operative Societies, the applicant was not entitled for the allotment asked for. It is apparent that both the learned Collector and the Commissioner misled themselves by thinking that section 62 or section 101 of the Tenancy Act are applicable in this case. The provisions of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, so far as the erstwhile Jagir land is concerned, apply subject to the provisions of the M.B. Abolition of Jagirs Act (see section 40 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act). As such the provisions of section 27 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act would supersede any provisions to the contrary in the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. Section 27 reads as follows: - If a Jagirdar whose Jagir land is resumed under section 3 does not cultivate any land personally in which he may acquire the rights of a Pucca tenant under section 10, he may be granted suitable land on lease in any neighbouring village according to the rules made by the Government in this behalf. (underlined by me)

(2.) GOVERNMENT have, subsequently, framed rules under section 27 which have been published under Notification No. 70/28/49/56 in the Gazette dated 1st March 1957, Chapter 4, page 101. The allotment of land to a Jagirdar under section 27 of the Abolition of Jagira Act has, therefore, to be made in accordance with the aforesaid rule under section 27, Abolition of Jagirs Act and not in accordance with either the rules framed under section 62 or section 101 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. It is also wrong on the part of the Commissioner to say that under rule 7(3) of section 62, M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act preference has to be given to a registered Co -operative Society. It is surprising, that the learned Commissioner should have failed to notice that under rule 7(3) preference has to be given, not to every registered Co -operative Society, but to a society formed by the Adiwasis or the Backward classes. In the instant case, the society in question is not one either of the Adiwasis or the Backward classes. It is, therefore, clear that the Courts below committed an error of law in rejecting applicant's case on the grounds mentioned in their respective order. However, the applicant's application must fail because section 27 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act and the rules made thereunder, on which he has built his case, go against him. Section 27 lays down that an ex -Jagirdar may be granted suitable land "in a neighbouring village". The word 'neighbouring' is significant. In the rules framed under section 27 it is again laid down very clearly that - à ¤ ¯Ã  ¤ ¦Ã  ¤ ¿ à ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ §Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ¨ à ¤ •Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ †Ã  ¤ §Ã  ¥ €Ã  ¤ ¨ à ¤ ªÃ  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ -à ¥ Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ ¹Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ ¤ à ¤ œÃ  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ -à ¥ €Ã  ¤ ° à ¤ ­Ã  ¥ ‚à ¤ ®Ã  ¤ ¿ à ¤ Ã  ¤ • à ¤ ¸Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ ...à ¤ §Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ • à ¤ -à ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ‚à ¤ µÃ  ¥ ‹Ã  ¤ ‚ à ¤ ®Ã  ¥ ‡Ã  ¤ ‚ à ¤ «Ã  ¥ ˆÃ  ¤ ²Ã  ¥ € à ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ ‹ à ¤ ¤Ã  ¥ ‹ à ¤ œÃ  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ -à ¥ €Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¤ ¦Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ° à ¤ Ã  ¤ ¸Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ Ã  ¤ • à ¤ ¯Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ ...à ¤ §Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ • à ¤ -à ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ‚à ¤ µÃ  ¥ ‹Ã  ¤ ‚ à ¤ •Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ ªÃ  ¤ ¡Ã  ¤ ¼Ã  ¥ ‹Ã  ¤ ¸ à ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ²Ã  ¥ € à ¤ ­Ã  ¥ ‚à ¤ ®Ã  ¤ ¿ à ¤ •Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ ²Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤  à ¤ †Ã  ¤ µÃ  ¥ ‡Ã  ¤ ¦Ã  ¤ ¨ à ¤ •Ã  ¤ ° à ¤ ¸Ã  ¤ •Ã  ¥ ‡Ã  ¤ -à ¤ ¾ |