DEVI SHANKAR Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - All the three wings of the State viz. , Executive, Judiciary and Legislature are on trial, Judges are on trial. It is expected from the Courts that status quo time bound beurocrate approach should be given a good way People expects that Judges should have activist approach while interpreting the law and applying the law. If we apply the law in a way which may frustrate the object laid down in our Constitution then we are failing the discharge of our duties. Judiciary should always be non-committed. We cannot have. commitment towards the ideology of any political and social groups of parties. We are committed that the law should be applied in a way which is in conformity with the directives given in our Constitution. The preamble of the Constitution reads as under :- "we THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC AND to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY THIS TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1949 DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION. Justice, social and economic can only be achieved, if we give good bye to the doctrine of status quo in the matter of implementation of the development schemes. If we adhere to the status quo, we cannot give justice to the teeming millions who are down trodden and starved. We have inherited a feudal system. There were big landlords who were exploiting the labour of the landless labourers. Agrarian reforms were introduced to strive towards providing social economic equality as far as practicable. Jagirs were resumed in the year 1954 and the present Tenancy Act came into force in the year 1955. The persons who were tilling land and were sub tenants were given Khatedari rights and to meet just demand of the landless labourers, provision relating to the Ceiling were introduced at a later stage by inserting Chapter III-B in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Chapter III-B has been introduced to resume the land of those persons who were having surplus land at their disposal and who were not capable of cultivating the land themselves. Agranan reforms were introduced so that the land may be resumed and the land can be distributed among the needy landless labourers and others who were really in the need of the land for the purpose of agriculture. With this in mind, the legislature introduced Chapter III-B in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. To keep the balance and to avoid the hardship, subsequent amendments were made by introducing ss. 30-D & 30-DD. On January 1, 1973, the imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act came into force. Thus, the procedure which was provided under the Tenancy Act has now been provided altogether in a different enactment. The imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 has been enacted to over come the difficulties which the State was facing in the implementation of the agrarian reforms. Protagonists of property rights have always placed impediments in the implementation of the ceiling law.

(2.) COURTS are meant to impart justice, as intended in our Constitution's preamble. Justice does not mean a justice of status quo for the benefit of an individual but justice means justice to the nation, justice to the unemployed justice to the economy of nation, justice to the society and so on Whenever there is a conflict between the cause of an individual and the cause of the nation or the society as a whole, then the justice to the society, to the economy and to the unemployed persons should prevail. We are neither to correct every irregularity or illegality in exercise of the discretionary powers vested under Art. 226 of the Constitution. When we feel that there is a just case and the development schemes have to be projected in a way which may provide the avenues of employment to the unemployed, which may lead to the production which is the backbone of the national economy then, in my opinion, we should refrain ourselves even in issuing directions or writs which may lead to increase the problems of unemployment and which may curtail the avenues of employment or which adversely affects the production.

(3.) MR. M. I. Khan, learned Govt. Advocate submits that in para 10 of the writ petition (in ground N. 2), it was stated that petitioner No. 2 has never submitted any return in the year 1966 or before the receipt of Annexure-1. Annexure-1 was issued on 283. 1975 and it was received by petitioner Mangilal on 19. 3. 85. Thus, the submission made by the petitioner in ground No. 2 of para 10 of the writ petition is not correct and have been falsified from the record of the lower court. In ground No. (iii) of para 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that ceiling proceedings were initiated against the petitioner No. 2 only after the New Act had come in force. The submission made by the petitioner is also totally false and is against the record of the lower court. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioner by stating wrong facts before the court got the writ petition admitted and obtained the stay order from the Court and as such, the petitioner has made a false case before the court and he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court on the ground that material facts have been suppressed and wrong facts have been stated. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to state that after the issuance of the notice Annx.-I the Court directed that the proceedings taken under the old Act will continue. Thus, learned Govt. Advocate wants to submit that it is a case of suppression of material facts as well as placing wrong facts before the Court. MR. Garg submits that it is a case of inadvertance and illiteracy and as such, the correct picture could not be brought before the Court. He expressed regret for the same. The material facts have been suppressed and wrong facts have been placed before the Court. As the petitioner was a successful in getting the writ petition admitted and obtaining the stay order from the Court, in such circumstances, I think that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in the Court. The writ petition is liable to be rejected only on this ground. It may be mentioned here that MR. M. I. Khan, learned Govt. Advocate put his best ability and with all force at his command and has pleaded the case of the State, very vehemently.