BHARAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant case is an eye-opener as to what an extent a litigant can abuse to process of the Court as one of the petitioner, a joint Khatedar, had withdrawn the amount of compensation for the land and enjoyed the interim order for about three years by suppressing the material fact. Even today, in respect of the joint Khatedari, the petition got dismissed in a clandestine manner but possession could not be given to respondents as there had been no partition by meet and bounds.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 3, the company, had been granted a mining lease for a big area by the respondent -State for excavation of minerals. THE company filed an application before the District Collector on 26.3.93 (Annex.1) to determine the compensation of a large track of land, including the land in dispute, under the provisions of Sec. 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act, 1956"). Respondent No.2, a joint Khatedar, filed objection before the District Collector on 2.4.1996 to the effect that they had no objection in giving possession of the land to respondent company but they wanted a proper determination of compensation and they did not want to give effect to the compromise/agreement entered into between the parties earlier. THE District Collector rejected the application of respondent company vide order dated 29.6.96. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, respondent company filed an appeal under Sec. 75 of the Act, 1956 and the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide order dated 21.11.96, remanded the case directing the District Collector to determine the compensation in terms of Sec. 89 of the Act, 1956. When the matter came up again before the District Collector, petitioners filed objections on 6.1.1997 contending that the land could be acquired only under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as required under the provisions of Sec. 63 (1) (iii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act, 1955") which provided that the tenancy rights could be extinguished only by acquiring the land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. THE District Collector, vide impugned order dated 3/26.07.1998 (Annex.4), rejected the objections of petitioners and determined the amount of compensation. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) IN Delhi Municipality vs. Shiv Shanker (1) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as above placing reliance upon the judgment in Paine vs. Stater (2), wherein it has been observed as under:- "Where two Acts are inconsistent or repugnant, the latter will be read as having impliedly repelled the earlier. As the legislature must be presumed in deference to the rule of law to intent to enact consistent and harmonious bodies of law, a subsequent legislation may not be readily presume to effectuate a repeal of existing statutory laws in the absence of express or atleast clear and unambiguous indication to that effect. This is essential in the interest of certainty and consistency in the laws, which citizens are enjoined and expected to obey. The legislature, which may generally be presume to know the existing law, is not expected to intent to create confusion by its omission to express its intent to repeal in clear terms."