SADIQ ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing Annexure-4 passed by the Tehsildar, Chohtan in Revenue Case No. 10/1993 dated 30.8.1994 whereby the Tehsildar, Chohtan while exercising power under Section 63(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 extinguished the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 63(l)(viii) of the Act of 1955 on the ground that the petitioner migrated from India to a foreign country without obtaining valid passport or visa; so also, order dated 26.12.1995 passed in appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the order dated 4.8.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the Board of Revenue upheld the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 3.8.1994 and order of the Addl. Collector, Barmer dated 26.12.1995.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in the criminal case registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 3(6) of the Indian Passport Act, the petitioner was convicted by the Munsiff Court Barmer but the word "migration" is flexible because admittedly the petitioner is citizen of India. Further, it is submitted that in the judgment rendered by this Court, reported in 2004(2) WLC 327, the Division Bench of this Court held that even in the event of prosecution in the year 1976 for crossing border it does not mean that the petitioner migrated to Pakistan for all purposes and this fact was to be considered by all the Courts below but it was not considered, therefore, the Division Bench remitted the case to the Trial Court for deciding the same upon the aforesaid fact, therefore, it is submitted that all the orders impugned may be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner himself is not disputing the fact that he was convicted by the Criminal Court in the case registered against him under Section 3/6 of the Indian Passport Act; more so, he has accepted the guilt before the Court for which he was convicted, therefore, no illegality was committed by the Tehsildar in passing the impugned order in view of Section 63(l)(viii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, therefore, the concurrent finding given by all the Courts below does not require any interference.