LAWS(RAJ)-1980-11-11

RAJESHWAR SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AMBER

Decided On November 27, 1980
RAJESHWAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AMBER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Rajeshwar Singh, Ex Jagirdar of Samod, challenging the validity of the order, dated August 23, 1978 (Annexure-6), passed by the State Government under section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 562 27, 1978 (Ann-8), passed by the Additional Collector (I), Jaipur as well as the order, dated May 21, 1980 (Ann-9), passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.

(2.) AGRICULTURE is the key sector of our country. A large majority of our people live in rural areas and most of them make living through agriculture It is generally true that a few individuals who own a large share of land dominate, local politics and through their roles as leaders, landlords and employers, they influence the day to day behaviour of their neighbours. The landless, the in-secured tenants and those owning marginal plots too small to support a family constitute poorest of the poor. It is they who in many cases are born into debt and die in debt, who see upto half of their infants dies before age five, who live chronically in a tight rope of survival from which they can quickly fall any day if the weather turns against them. As such before dealing with the facts of the case in hand, it would be beneficial to narrate the salient features of land legislation in Rajasthan.

(3.) THEREAFTER section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was substituted by section 4 of the Rajasthan Amending Act No. 8 of 1976, published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part IV-A dated February 5, 1976 The validity of the amended provision was challenged in Sajjansingh V State of Rajasthan (3 ). Learned single Judge after giving a careful thought to the arguments advanced before him, upheld the validity of the provisions of the Amending Act No. 8 of 1976.