DEVI PRATAP SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order, dated October 11, 1979, passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Revision Case No. 54 of 1977, whereby the Board of Revenue, while dismissing the revision petition, held that the petitioner's counsel had already exercised opinion under sub-section (2) of Section 30e of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') regarding the land situated within the subdivision Dausa. As no appeal was filed against it, that order became final and it was not open to the petitioner or Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, to re-open that case and provide him a second option for change of land from Dausa Sub-Division to Tonk Sub-Division.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner holds land in two sub-divisions, Dausa, and Tonk. Proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, were instituted against him. In response to the notice issued he filed objections in both the sub-divisions. On May 30, 1975, the matter came up for decision before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa. Out of the total land, measuring 295 Bighas 6 Biswas, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer held that the petitioner after deducting the recognisable transfers made by him possessed 186 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land i. e. 46. 8 standad acres. As the petitioner's family consisted of five members, he was entitled to 30 standard acres of land and the rest of the land measuring 16. 8 acres was resumable. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, that some proceeding regarding ceiling area relating to petitioner's land situated in Tehsil Deoli was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, but he was not in a position to show as to how much land was situated in that Village. He also exhibited his ignorance regarding the fact whether or not the land situated in Tehsil Lalsot was shown in the declaration submitted before the sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk. However, the learned counsel in his discretion, as a duly authorised representative of the petitioner, submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer that his client would like to keep 30 standard acres of land situated in Tehsil Lalsot, which fell within the jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa. In accordance with the desire expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Sub-Divisional Officer allotted 30 standard acres of land vide his order dated May 30, 1975, which has been placed on record by the petitioner and marked Annexure-2. No appeal seems to have been filed against this order and as such it became final.

(3.) THE Indian Constitution is first and foremost a social document. Our founding fathers provided in Article 39 of the Constitution of India that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are to be so distributed as best to subserve the common good. THEy also provided that the operation of the economic system should not result in concentration of wealth and means to the common detriment. With this end in view the ceiling laws were enacted in several States and similarly in Rajasthan the law was enacted in the year 1963. We are in the year 1980 A long period of the 17 years has elapsed in between. As early as on May 16, 1951 Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of this country in a debate on First Amendment Bill to the Constitution observed: - ". . . . . . a survey of Asia today will lead any intelligent person to swear that the basic and the primary problem is the land problem today in Asia, as in India. And every day of delay adds to the difficulties and dangers apart from being injustice in itself. "