BAKTA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference has been received from a Member for an authoritative pronouncement on the following questions : (1) Can the Board go into the validity of a rule framed by the State Government in exercise of powers delegated under sub-section (2) of section 261 Land Revenue Act and decide whether an impugned rule is or is not under the Land Revenue Act ? (2) Whether rule 14 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 as it was prior to the amendment dated 28-11-70 is within the limits of the powers delegated by the Act ? and (3) Whether the amendment dated 28-11-70 inserting the following words "or a Tehsildar under the Rules repealed by rule 21 of these Rules" in rule 14 (4) is retrospective in operation and is therefore beyond the powers delegated by sub-section (2) of section 261 of the Land Revenue Act ?

(2.) THIS reference has arisen out of orders passed by the Collector Pali and upheld by the R. A. A. Jodhpur which were challenged in second appeal before the Board under section 76 of the Land Revenue Act. Allotments had been made to all the appellants under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 well before the new allotment rules came into force in the year 1970. The Collector Pali cancelled the allotments under rule 14 (4) of the 1970 Rules. A separate reference posing the same questions has been made in respect of a similar order passed by the Collector Bhilwara.

(3.) SHRI Pareek supports the argument made on behalf of the appellants that sections 12 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is analogous to section 113 of the C. P. C. but says that the powers of the Board are wider than those in section 113 because there is no obligation to make a reference. A further point made is that rules are delegated legislation and as per AIR 1972 SC 1917 the delegate is empowered only to carry out the subsidiary policy within the guidelines laid down by the Legislature. It would not be permissible for the authority to whom powers are delegated to transgress the limits so as to bring about a conflict with the enactment itself. As regards the scope of section 11 of the Land Revenue Act, SHRI Pareek says that the matter before the court is undoubtedly a question of law and there can be no impediment to hearing the reference. The question of law is regarding the interpretation of section 261 of the Land Revenue Act and whether the rules framed under that section are in consonance with the rule-making power conferred by the section.