GANPAT SINGH Vs. JEEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision has been filed against an order of the Assistant Collector Deedwana dated 11th June 1952 refusing to proceed with the application presented before him under sec. 6 of the Marwar Tenancy Act on the ground that the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 completely deprived him of all jurisdiction in the matter.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, could have no retrospective effect. THE application was filed before the Assistant Collector on 12th April, 1950 i. e. long before the promulgation of the aforesaid Act and hence it should have been proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of the Marwar Tenancy Act. A decision of the Federal Court (A. I. R. 1944 Federal Court 1) has also been cited in support of this contention. But on a careful examination of the various provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, it will be found that this argument is wholly untenable. THE general maxim applicable to interpretation of statutes is that "where general words in a later act are capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation that earlier and special legislation is not to be held indirectly repealed or altered. " Here the subsequent Act does not allow the matter to be treated by implied repeal for it has expressly repealed the earlier law (Marwar Tenancy Act ). Sec. 46 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, clearly lays down that "save as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be settled or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act. It is evident, therefore, that after the passage of this Act no revenue or civil court could have jurisdiction over any matter which is to be decided under this Act. THE term Khud-kasht has been defined in the Act to mean any land cultivated personally by a jagirdar. Chapter IV of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed for allotment of Khudkasht. Sec. 6 of the Marwar Tenancy Act also deals with this subject and hence stands expressly repealed. Sec. 47 of the subsequent Act makes the matter further clear by providing that save as otherwise expressly laid down in this Act its provisions shall have affect notwithstanding anything therein contained being inconsistent with any existing Jagir Law or any other Law for the time being in force. THE decision cited on behalf of the applicant is based upon sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act which lays down that "where any Central Act repeals any previous enactment then the repealed Act shall not effect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed enactment unless a different intention appears in the law itself. " THE position would certainly have been different if there had been no express intention to repeal previous enactment on the subject. But in view of the clear provisions of secs. 46 and 47 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, it is abundantly clear that the lower court came to a correct conclusion in the case.