VIJAY LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six appeals under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquistion Act, 1963, raise a common question of law and fact and hence they are being disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) A piece of agricultural land situated in village Sogaria, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, was acquired for the construction of a wagon repair workshop and the staff colony for Western Railway. The land stood entered in the revenue records in the muafi of one Purohit Krishna Dutt and the appellants were its actual cultivators, paying its rent to the muafidar. Krishna Dutt as also the appellants claimed compensation due to the acquisition of the land. An award was given on 6th September, by the Additional Collector Kota by which he rejected the claim of the muafidar as well as of the appellants for compensation. A reference was then made to the court and the learned District Judge by his order dated 6th September 1961 holding that the reference was premature directed the Additional Collector to make an award in accordance with law. The Additional Collector then after hearing the parties again rejected the claim of the appellants as well as of Krishna Dutt by his award dated 28th June, 1962. Again an application was made for making reference to the court under Section 18 of the Act, and the learned Additional Collector made a reference upon which the proceedings started in the court of the District Judge Kota. The learned District Judge by his order under appeal rejected Krishna Dutt's claim on the ground that he was awarded compensation for this land by the Jagir Commissioner under the provisions of the Jagir Resumption Act, when this land was resumed by the State. The claim of the appellants was rejected on the ground that they were not Khatedar tenants of the land but were only Zeli Kashtkars. In the court of the District Judge, some documents were produced in evidence on behalf of the cultivators to show that Krishna Dutt had already been given compensation on the resumption of the land by the State under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reform and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952, and further that they were in actual possession of the land as cultivators and rent was being recovered from them by the State. No other inquiry was made in that court. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants, who are all cultivators, have come to this Court in appeal.

(3.) IN support of first contention it is pointed out that the disputed land originally belonged to the erstwhile Kota State and thereafter it was given in muafi by the Ruler of Kota State of Purohit Krishna Dutt. It is pointed out that before the land was granted in muafi to Krishna Dutt, the appellants were occupying the land as Khatedar tenants and were paying its rent to the State. In that connection, reliance is placed upon the true copies of Khatas for Smt years 1982 to 1989 produced by the appellants before the Additional Collector. It is contended that the nature of the appellant's tenancy would not change upon the land being granted in muafi to Krishna Dutt in Smt. year 1989. By granting the land in muafi to Krishna Dutt the effect would only be that the appellants would be thereafter regarded as his tenants instead of being the tenants of Kota State. However, that would not mean that their status from that of a Khatedar tenant would become that of Zeli or a sub -tenant.