PRITHVI RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a bunch of 542 writ applications presented under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the vires of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act No. 4 of 1960) (which shall hereafter be referred to as the Act No. 4 of 1960) amending the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act No. 3 of 1955) (which shall hereafter be referred to as the Tenancy Act), and, the validity of the Rules and Notifications issued under the Act, and praying for writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, restraining the opposite party from giving effect to or acting in any manner by virtue of or under the said Act or Notifications.

(2.) TO state the facts, the State of Rajasthan passed the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. 4 of 1960 for the purpose of imposing ceilings on agricultural holdings in Rajasthan. By means of this Act, the Legislature inserted new Chapters III-B and III-C. Chapter III-B which is relevant for our purposes, introduces secs. 30-B to 30-J in the original Tenancy Act. Sub-sec.(2) of sec. 1 of the Act provided that the Act shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint. This Act received the assent of the President on 12-3-1960. After the enactment of Act No. 4 of 1960, the Rajasthan Government by notification No. F. 6(120) Rev./B/60 dated 9th April, 1963, published a draft of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land (Government) Rules, 1963, as required by sec. 259 of the Tenancy Act, for the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby, and further giving notice that the said draft rules shall be taken into consideration on or after the 15th day of July, 1963, along with any objections or suggestions which may be received by the Government from any person with respect to the said draft rules before that day. It may be pointed out that during the course of arguments no reference was made whether any of the petitioners made any objections or suggestions in response to the notice given by the Government. We then come to 26th of November, 1963. On this date, the three important notifications were promulgated. Firstly, by notification No. 6(12) Rev./B/60 passed in the exercise of powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 1 of the Act No. 4 of 1960, the State Government appointed 15th day of December, 1963 as the day on which the said Act shall come into force. By another notification No. F. 6(120) Rev. B./60(iii) of the even date passed in the exercise of powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 30-E of the Tenancy Act, the State Government notified 15th day of December, 1963 as the day for the purpose of said section in respect of all holdings of 150 ordinary acres and above situated in all areas other than the areas covered by the Rajasthan Canal Project. Lastly, by Notification No. 6(120) Rev. B/60(ii) dated 26-11-1963 in the exercise of powers conferred by sec. 257 of the Tenancy Act, the State Government made and published "The Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land (Government) Rules, 1963." Sec. 30-E as inserted by the Act No. 4 of 1960 requires a person in possession of land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him or a person who subsequently comes into possession of excess area by acquisition to make a report of such possession or acquisition and to surrender such excess land to the State Government within six months of such date or within three months of such acquisition. R. 9 of the Ceiling Rules requires persons to file declarations in the prescribed forms. The petitioners, who are holders of agricultural holdings having become liable to take action under sec. 30-E of the Act No. 4 of 1960 and R. 9 of the Ceiling Rules, filed the present writ applications challenging the Act, the Notifications and the Rules.

(3.) THE learned Counsel also relied upon Messrs. Adarsh Bhandar vs. State Tax Officer, Aligarh(3) and Rajender Kumar Chandarmal vs. Government of State of M. P.(4). It is unnecessary to notice these cases in detail in view of the discussions of the law in the Supreme Court case. It will be sufficient to observe that the decisions have been arrived at on a consideration of the facts and the circumstances of these cases and they cannot render any assistance to the petitioners in the facts and the circumstances of the present case.