STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KAMI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six revisions involve identical questions. They were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these revisions are identical and it would suffice here to mention the facts in State of Rajasthan vs. M/s. Bikaner Hotels Private Limited, Bikaner (S. B. Civil Revision No. 103 of 1984 ).

(3.) TWO contentions were raised by the learned Assistant Government Advocate, which are:- (1) that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain or hear the appeals as the Additional Collector had passed the order under the amended provisions of S. 47-A of the Act and against which, revision petitions could only be preferred before the Board of Revenue. The orders passed by the District Judge, Bikaner are, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction. (2) that the District Judge has committed an error in setting aside the order of the Collector remanding the case with a direction to re-hear the matter in regard to the consideration mentioned in the various sale deeds and not on the basis of the market value of the lands so sold. The only question that, therefore, arises for determination in these revisions is whether S. 47-A of the Act as amended by the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) (Amendment) Act, 1982 (No. X of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act of 1982) is retrospective or not?