UMA Vs. KAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by D. B. to a larger bench of the Board in a second appeal presented by Shri Uma and others plaintiff-appellants, u/s. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, against the decree & order of the Revenue Appellate Authority Udaipur dated 5-9-67 passed in appeal reversing the order & decree of the S. D. O. Udaipur dated 12-1-67. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit u/s 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for possession of suit land, Khasra No 194 to 197 measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas in village Dhayala, tehsil Nathdwara. It was alleged that Kajor, defendant-respondent dispossessed the plaintiff-appellants from the suit land in Smt. 2012 (1955 A. D.) after about 2 years of the demise of Roda, ancestor of plaintiff-appellants. The plaintiff appellants were 'muafidars' of the suit land and as per admission of the parties, it was resumed to the State on 17-1958 (samvat year 2015 ). The defendant respondent contested the suit on the ground that he was in possession of the suit land, since Smt. 2007 (1950 A. D.) as a mortgagee and since Smt. 2009, when the land was purchased by him from one Da!u deceased father of Mst. Bhowani, his married daughter, defendant No 3 from the date of resumption of the 'mafi' in Smt. . 2015, he became khatedar of the suit land. The suit was decreed by the S. D. O. , on 12-1-67, against which an appeal having been filed before the R. A. A. , the decree and judgment of the S. D. O. was set aside, on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent before him, who were 'mafidars' and whose 'mafi' was resumed to the State could not bring a suit u/s 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, because they were not in a position to admit the defendant respondent as tenant and also because their right, title and interest in the 'muafi' land had vested in the State from the date of resumption of the 'muafi' land.

(2.) IT is against this order that the plaintiff-appellants filed a second appeal. The D. B. consisting of Members sarva Shri G. L. Mehta and Narayan Chand arrived at the conclusion that sec 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act could not be given an interpretation to mean that the plaintiff-appellants who were 'bhils' i. e members of scheduled tribe, were unable to bring a suit for ejectment of the defendant-respondent who belonged to non-scheduled caste or tribe because sec. 46-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act embodies a special provision under which a person being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe could not let or sub let the whole or any part of his holding to any person who was not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. The learned Members were accordingly in favour of accepting the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the R. A. A. , but in view of a contrary decision in a revenue appeal No. 278/67/appeal/bharatpur District, by another D. B. of the Board, having come to their notice, they considered it necessary to make the following reference to a Larger Bench: "whether in the circumstances of the instant case, suit can be brought forth by a member belonging to a scheduled tribe or a scheduled caste, u/s. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, against a trespasser who is not a member of a scheduled tribe or a scheduled caste, the former having been held as not competent to admit the latter, as a tenant in view of the provisions of sec. 46-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act".

(3.) WE have given full consideration to the various arguments advanced and rulings cited in support thereof. In view of the observations made above, we are of the considered view that Sec. 46-A was not open to any two interpretations and this section read with sec. 183 of the Act means that a person belonging to scheduled caste or tribe cannot bring a suit u/s 183 of the Act to eject a non-scheduled caste or tribe trespasser for the reason that sec, 46-A debarred him to make him his tenant and one who could not be admitted as tenant, could also not be sued for ejectment. In our view the law as it stands, must inexorably grind its wheel irrespective of class of persons and individuals. If there is any anomaly between these two sections, it is not our business to iron out the same.