IFHTEKAR ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is fully covered by the judgment dt. 13.04.1992 given in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1454/88.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent attempted to distinguish this case by referring to us various provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He particularly relied emphasis during his argument that the right of the petitioner is sufficiently safeguarded in the said Act and he could get compensation out of the money which would be payable to him. It is not the primary question involved in the present writ petition. The question is, as to whether the State Government could compel him to offer unencumbered land first and only when the same was to be acquired then the balance of surplus land has to be recovered from the transferee. That appears to be clear from Section 30-E(2) second proviso and Sections 16 (4) and 18 of the New Ceiling Law. Section 30-E(2) second proviso of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act reads as under : - "Provided further that the option offered by the foregoing provisions shall be subject to the limitation that, where the person surrendering excess land under this sub-section holds, lands of which some are encumbered and some are not encumbered, the unencumbered lands shall, so far as may be, be surrendered in preference to encumbered land."