SAGAR Vs. VIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by a Division Bench of the Board of revenue' for Rajasthan at Ajmer (for short' the Board of Revenue') dated 7. 11. 1988 disposing of six appeals. For Rajasthan at Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue')

(2.) IT is alleged that against petitioners Bhala (Writ Petition No. 948/89), Sagar (Writ Petition No. 949. 89) and the father of Megharam & Ors. i. e. Motaram (Writ petition No. 947 of ), a suit for eviction under Sec. 180 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was File by late by Maji Sahiba Shri Shekhawatji Govind Kanwarji from who certain pieces of land were, taken by these petitioners for cultivation in village Nasal Bari and Nesal Choti whereas against petitioners Laxman (Writ Petition No. 109/89) and Harisingh and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 3465 of 1989), writs for eviction were brought under s. l80 (l) (b) of the Act respondents No. l to 3, who are legal here of late Maji Sahiba Shri Shekhawatji Govind Kanwar ji. All these fruits were instituted in the year 1971 and they came to be dismissed by the trial court on 13. 2. 1975. IT will be pertinent to note here that during the pendency of these suits before the trial Court, Maji Sahiba Shri Shekhawatji Govind Kanwarji died on 28. 12. 1971. However, appeals were filed before the Revenue Appelate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the judgment of the Sub-Division Officer, Bikaner and decreed the suits of the plaintiffs for eviction of the petitioners vide his Judgment dated 4. 3. 1978. Thereafter, second appeals were filed before the Board of Revenue and they were dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 31. 1. 1986.

(3.) WE may first refer to an authority of their lordship of the supreme Court in Textile Commr. V. Sagar Textile Mills (l), wherein their lordships have observed:- "the word "may" is capable of meaning 'must' or 'shall' in the light of the context and where a discretion is conferred upon, a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word 'may' which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Considering the purpose of the relevant empowerment and its impact on those, who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the power, we are clear that the power conferred on the Textile Commissioner to issue directions is coupled with the duty to specify the particular period for which the directions shall be operative. "