STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine (sic ten ?) appeals arise out of the proceedings which have a chequered history. All the respondents in these appeals claim to be admitted as tenants on the agricultural land situated in the erstwhile Jagir of Chhatargarh in the erstwhile State of Bikaner, now in the Bikaner district. The lands -fall within the area irrigated by the Rajasthan Canal (now known as Indira Gandhi Canal). The Jagir of Chhatargarh was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, on 23rd of August, 1954. It was the case of the respondents that they were regularly paying the rent to the erstwhile Jagirdars and, thereafter, they have paid the rent to the State Government. According to them, after the resumption of Chhatargarh Jagir, they became tenants of the State Government by operation of the provisions of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1952') and consequently the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for Short, 'the Act, 1955') came into force from 15th October, 1955 and they became Khatedar tenants under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It was further the case of the respondents that prior the the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, they were governed by the Tenenacy Act of the Bikaner State concerning the tenancy rights in the land in question and which according to them, were heritable and transferable. In 1958, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was amended and Section 15 -A was inserted envisaging that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13 or Sub -section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 1955 or any other law for the time being in force, or in any lease, patta or other document, land in the Rajasthan Canal area leased out on any terms whatsoever shall be deemed to have been let out temporarily within the meaning of the proviso to the said sub -section of Section 15 of the Act and no Khatedari rights shall accrue or shall be deemed ever to have accrued in any such land leased out as aforesaid.

(2.) IN the first instance, on challenge to validity of Section 15 -A by a number of persons, it was held to be ultra vires by this Court in (1) Jassuram and others v. State of Rajasthan and Others AIR 1963 Rajasthan 72). Thereafter the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was included in Schedule IX of the Constitution and the Revenue Authorities refused to recognise the Khatedari rights of the persons in land or the area falling within the territory of Rajasthan Canal and treated those occupants as trespassers, as a result of which proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 or Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act were initiated against some of the persons and standing crops of some of the tenants were attached.

(3.) AGGRIEVED with this order, as many as 285 appeals were preferred before the Division Bench which came to be decided on 20th January, 1973. Said judgment is reported in (2) Jugal Kishore and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and OOrs. (1973 RLW 250). While affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge about the validity of Section 15A, that part of the order by which the petitioners were directed to hand over the possession to the State Government on dismissal of the writ petitions, after harvesting the standing crops, was modified by directing that that part of the learned Single Judge which proceeds on the basis of the assumed undertaking given by the appellants is set aside, because there appears to be some factual error. At no point of time, the appellants gave any undertaking to hand over the possession of the land'. Along with that the Court also ordered that the proceedings under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act in the 14 appeals detailed in Schedule 'B' of the judgment be set aside and quashed and allowed the appeals, in part, by further directing that if the appellants are to be evicted from the land in question, they shall be evicted in accordance with law. No interference was made in proceedings pending under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act by holding that it requires number of questions of fact including of nature of rights and continued possession which may be decided in appropriate proceedings under law for determining such issues. Total number of cases in which proceedings under Section 22 of Colonisation Act were pending were 14 and in which proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were pending were 13. Thus, out of 285 appeals, proceedings for eviction were only in respect of 27 cases. Aggrieved with the judgment passed by the Division Bench, the appellants preferred appeals before Supreme Court.