SOORAJ BAI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed by Suraj Bai challenging the judgment dated 16.8.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue with the further prayer that the judgment dated 18.11.1990 passed by SDO, Kota be restored. Alternatively, it has been prayed that the order passed by the ceiling authorities may be quashed to the extent they have not considered case of the petitioner and respondents be directed to re -open and decide case of the petitioner with regard to her share in the total holdings and it be declared that petitioner is entitled to have share in the land of deceased Mathura Lal and is entitled to retain 30 standard acres as per law.

(2.) According to the facts of the case, petitioner is daughter of late Mathura Lal. She was married to Krishna Gopal. Her father Mathura Lal died on 11.1.1962. She claimed share in the properties left by him as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Mathura Lal had one son Bajrang, besides the petitioner. Bajrang has also died on 13.3.1963 and is now represented by his L.Rs. -respondent Nos. 5 to 7. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to receive share in the properties left by her father as per Rule 17(4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) (Government) Rules, 1963 (for short -'the Old Ceiling Law). These Rules were framed under Chapter III -B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The notified date fixed under the said Chapter is 1st April, 1966. The ceiling proceedings were initiated against late Mathura Lal, father of the petitioner. Provisions of old ceiling laws were repealed by enactment namely; the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short -'the New Ceiling Law'). According to petitioner, her father had gifted her land measuring 14 bighas covered by khasra No. 221 situated at Village Jalimpura. The said land was mutated after he got decree vide judgment dated 13.6.1975 passed by the Assistant Collector and Magistrate First Class, Kota. However, the ceiling case was decided against her father in 1975 and now under new ceiling law, she was not given opportunity of hearing. Her father had already died when notice for filing return under Sec. 11(1) of the New Ceiling Act had been issued in his name. His son Bajrang Lal also died in 1963 at the time of initiation of the proceedings against Mathura Lal. Legal representatives of Bajrang Lal appeared in the ceiling proceedings initiated against Mathur Lal without bringing the said fact to the notice of the learned Authorised Officer. The petitioner was entitled to notice of the Authorised Officer. The legal representatives of Bajrang Lal, the son of deceased Mathura Lal in the return filed before the competent authority gave the name of his widow Sooraj Bai and two sons Om Prakash and Mohan Lal. The Tehsildar enquired into the matter and submitted his report dated 26.11.1975. The draft statement was issued under Sec. 12 of the New Ceiling Law against Mathura Lal for appearance before the Authorised Officer on 9th October, 1975. Another draft was issued in the name of Mathura Lal as well as in the name of aforementioned legal representative of Shri Mathura Lal i.e. Sooraj Bai, Om Prakash and Mohan Lal for appearance on 22.3.1976. It may be noted that name of Bajrang Lal's wife is Sooraj Bai, which is also the name of petitioner, who happens to be sister of Bajrang Lal and daughter of Mathura Lal. Grievance of the petitioner is that her name was not included by Bajrang Lal in the return that was filed and, therefore, was omitted in the draft statement. The aforesaid legal representatives, however on 22.3.1976 replied to the draft statement stating that 14 bighas land of khasra No. 221 of Village Jalimpura was also gifted by deceased Mathura Lal to petitioner -Sooraj Bai during his life time.

(3.) Shri G.K. Garg, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Authorised Officer, thus came to know from this that daughter of Mathura lal was also alive and that she was also being one of the legal representative, was a necessary party. He was therefore duty bound to collect all the informations with regard to persons interested in the matter of ceiling case against Mathura Lal as per the provisions of Sec. 12(2) of the New Ceiling Act. Sec. 11 is in regard to collection of information by the ceiling authorities and detailed Rules have been framed thereunder are also relevant which provided for appointment of the Committees and holding of such enquiries as are found relevant and necessary including collecting report from the concerned Tehsildar. The learned Authorised Officer confined himself to the return submitted by the legal representatives of Mathura Lal i.e. Bajrang Lal and gave its judgment on 19.4.1976 and noted that Mathura Lal had held total holdings measuring 86.60 acres and the assessee are entitled to hold 30.00 standard acres. The rest of 53 acres was directed to be acquired being surplus land. The legal representatives filed appeal before the Additional Collector, who vide order dated 4.8.1976 partly accepted the appeal directing the Authorised Officer for accepting the options of the land given by the assessee irrespective of the fact that they had already been transferred in the names of third party and that they are encumbered lands. The Authorised Officer then passed the order dated 14.10.1976 and issued revised final statement for the purpose of acquiring the lands, which have been given in option. In the meanwhile, the transferees Shri Dhanna Lal and Shri Onkar Lal filed appeals before the learned Board of Revenue against the judgment dated 4.8.1976. The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 8.5.1978 accepted the appeal of the transferees relating to lands of khasra No. 125 measuring 19 bighas and 15 biswas situated in Village Kishorepura. It was held that encumbered land could not be given in option. The assessee also filed appeal against the order of Additional Collector dated 4.8.1976 before the Board of Revenue on the ground that ceiling determination was not correct and that separate units of Om Prakash and Mohan Lal were not taken into consideration. The Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 20.7.1981 and remanded the case with a direction that the age of these two persons, namely; Om Prakash and Mohan Lal may be ascertained and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed.