NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ petition and 340 other writ petitions detailed in Schedule *A* to this judgment (omitted here) have challenged the validity of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Pre -1955 Temporary Tenants Government Land Allotment) Conditions, 1971( hereinafter referred to as the 'Pre -1955 Conditions') and the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post -1955 Temporary Cultivation Leaseholders and other Landless persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) R ales, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Post -1955 Rules') on the ground that they are void being violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in all the writ petitions claim to be landless persons holding land in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area under temporary cultivation leases granted to them and renewed from year to year and they also claim that they continued to remain in possession of the land allotted to them for temporary cultivation upto the time of the filing of the respective writ petitions. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which these writ petitions came to be filed it would be proper to briefly recount the history of legislation leading upto the framing of the Pre -1955 Conditions and Post -1955 Rules.

(2.) IN the year 1954 the State of Rajasthan brought into force a measure known as the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for making better provision for the colonisation and administration of lands in the State. Section 2(ii) of the Act defines a 'colony' as any area to which the Act was made applicable by an order of the State Government published in the official Gazette and by Section 3 of the Act the provisions of the Aot were made applicable to all lands in a colony. Section 7 of the Act authorised the State to issue a statement of the conditions on which it was willing to grant land in a colony to tenants and after the issuance of such statement of conditions land could be allotted to any person to be held by him subject to such conditions. Further Section 28 of the Act authorised the State Government to make rules generally for carrying into effect the provisions and purpose of the Act and in particular for matters which were required by the Act to be prescribed, by notification in the oilicial Gazette. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under the aforesaid provisions of Section 28 read with Section 7, made and published in the official Gazette rules for allotment of Government lands for cultivation on permanent basis in respect of Bhakra Project, Chambal Project and Gang Canal areas during the years 1955 to 1957. The State Government also published in the official Gazette dated September 20, 1956 a statement of conditions called the Rajasthan Colonisation (Temporary Cultivation Leases) Conditions, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temporary Leases Conditions').

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that they were allotted agricultural land for temporary cultivation under the provisions of the aforesaid Temporary Leases Conditions and that such temporary cultivation leases were renewed year after year in their favour. It is also the admitted case of the petitioners that the lands cultivated by them under temporary leases are comprised in the Rajasthan Canal Project area and the villages, in which such lands are situated have been declared as colonies under Section 2 (ii) of the Act by notifications published by the State Government in the Rajasthan Gazette. The petitioners' further case is that they submitted applications under the provisions of the Pre -1955 Conditions or the Post -1955 Rules for allotment for permanent cultivation, in respect of lands which were under their temporary cultivation and that such applications were either rejected or were partly allowed or were pending consideration of the Allotting Authority. Now the provisions of the Pre -1955 Conditions and the Post -1955 Rules are being challenged in these writ petitions as discriminatory. Although various provisions of the Act and the Pre -1955 Conditions and the Post -1955 Rules have been the subject -matter of attack in the writ petitions, yet at the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners confined their challenge to the validity of Condition No. 3 and proviso to Condition No. 9 of the Pre -1955 Conditions and Rr. 2 (1) (xiii) and 3 of the Post -1955 Rules. It was also argued by learned counsel that as the aforesaid provisions challenged by them as unconstitutional are intrinsically connected with other provisions of the Conditions and the Rules and are not severable from them and as such the entire Pre -1955 Conditions and Post -1955 Rules should be struck down as ultra vires of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It may be pertinently mentioned here that none of the provisions of the Act were subject -matter of challenge at the time of arguments before me in these writ petitions.