SOBHAG KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner along with her sister Roop Bai filed revenue suit for declaration of their rights and possession over the lands of Khasra Nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village chapras, Tehsil Bundi. By order dated 10. 04. 1978 the Assistant Collector-II, Bundi dismissed the suit. THE petitioner preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 24. 04. 1981. She then filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue which too was dismissed on 10. 10. 1988. She seeks quashing of the said orders. She also seeks quashing of the order of Collector, Bundi dated 03. 11. 1955 holding that the lands escheated to the Darbar/state in terms of Sub- section 32 of the Bundi Tenancy Act, 1942 on the death of Kishan Dan. She also seeks quashing of mutation No. 29 dated 02. 02. 1958 mentioning the name of respondent No. 6 Modu with respect to the lands. THE petitioner further seeks declaration that the provisions of Section 32 (a) and (b) of the Bundi Tenancy Act, 1942 are unconstitutional. It is mainly because of the provisions of Section 32 of the said Act, that the petitioner's claim was rejected by the authorities.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner briefly is that her father Kishan Dan was the Khatedar tenant of Khasra Nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village Chapras, Tehsil Bundi. He died in Samvat 2006 (corresponding to 1949 A. D.) leaving behind widow Smt. Lad Kanwar, two daughters namely, Roop Bai and the petitioner herein. On the death of Kishan Dan the lands were mutated in the name of Smt. Lad Kanwar. She used to get the lands cultivated through respondent No. 6 Modu and receive half of the produce. Lad Kanwar died in Samvat 2009 (corresponding to 1952 A. D. ). After her death the petitioner along with Roop Bai started receiving half share of the produce from respondent No. 6 as before. Respondent No. 6 continued to cultivate the lands up to Samvat 2014 (Corresponding to 1957 A. D. ). On 02. 02. 1958 he got his name mutated in respect of the lands by bringing the concerned officials in his collusion vide mutation No. 29 dated 02. 02. 1958. THE petitioner along with Roop Bai filed suit seeking declaration of their Khatedari rights in the lands but the same was rejected on the ground that under Section 32 of the Bundi State Tenancy Act, married daughters are not entitled to inherit property of the father. Appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority and the second appeal to the Board of Revenue also were dismissed. She has now come to this Court in this writ petition seeking reliefs as mentioned above. It would not be out of place to mention here that during pendency of the proceedings before the authorities below, Roop Bai died and the matter was prosecuted by the petitioner alone.

(3.) ON a plain reading it would appear that the married daughter does not figure as an heir either of the father under Clause- (a) or of the mother under Clause- (b ). Realizing the weakness of the case, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 32 of the Act and it was submitted that the provisions of Section 32 excluding the married daughters from the line of succession is violative of the mandate of Article 15 read with Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Article 15, it was pointed out, prohibits discrimination on the ground only of sex, among other things, and the Bundi Tenancy Act being an enactment in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution of India in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of part III of the Constitution shall to the extent of such inconsistency is void.