AMIRUDDIN Vs. GOVT OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision wrongly styled as an appeal has been filed by the applicant in a proceeding under sec. 10, 19 and Rules made under sec. 36(1) of the Patta Act of the Former Jodhpur Government. We have heard the learned counsel and the Government Advocate and have gone through the record of the case. It appears that the applicant owned a plot of land No. 403, A in Sardarpura for which he also held a patta. It was sold by him to his father-in-law who subsequently re-sold it to the applicant for which a sale-deed was executed and registered on 18.10.48. The Development Officer held that as the applicant had not presented an application within three months after obtaining possession by transfer as laid down in sec. 10(11) of the Marwar Patta Act, he was liable to pay the present site value of the land under sec. 19 and also Rs. 100/-as penalty prescribed by Rules framed under sec. 36(1) of the Patta Act. Being aggrieved from this order, the applicant went in appeal before the learned Addl. Commissioner. The learned Addl. Commissioner observed that as the applicant failed to apply for the patta or for the renewal of the patta within the prescribed period and as this fact was discovered by the Patta Officer during the course of proceedings under the Ordinance on 1.4.3O, the Patta Officer was correct in charging the applicant, the present site value as well as the penalty. Hence this application in revision. It has not been urged anywhere that either the Patta Officer or the Addl. Commissioner exceeded their jurisdiction in imposing the above penalty. The only contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that sec. 19 was not applicable to the case and in the event of not applying for the Patta or for its renewal under sec. 19 of the Ordinance, the applicant could be charged only 10% of the present site value and a penalty upto Rs. 100/- as laid down in Rules under sec. 36(1) of the Ordinance. We do not subscribe to this view. Sec. 10, 19 and r.36 are not independent of each other. Sec. 10 lays down that "application for the grant or renewal of Patta shall be made in the case of persons obtaining possession by transfer within three months of the date of transfer. Admittedly no application was presented by the applicant within three months. In fact an application was presented by him on 14.5.51 i.e. about 2 years and 5 months after the date of obtaining possession by transfer by the applicant. It was only during the course of proceedings under this Ordinance that the Patta Officer discovered on 1.4.50 that the applicant had not presented any such application. Sec.19 clearly lays down that if any person who is in possession of any land when this Ordinance comes into force, or obtains possession of any land after the Ordinance came into force fails to apply for the Patta or for the renewal of Patta as the case may be and such failure is discovered during the course of proceedings such persons shall be liable to pay the present site value and also a penalty not exceeding the maximum prescribed by Rules framed under sec. 36(1). The Rule under sac. 36(1) provides that a penalty upto Rs. 100/- can be charged in such cases. There is no illegality or irregularity in the procedure followed by the lower-courts. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the applicant to show that in the past a practice existed not to charge the full site value of the land in such cases of omission by persons who applied even after the stipulated period of 3 months as laid down in sec. 10 or whose cases were discovered in a proceeding under sec. 19 of the Ordinance by the Patta Officers. We have seen some of there proceedings. In the first place none of these cases appear to be on all fours with the present one. Secondly, even if there be any, we cannot accept a decision in those cases as binding on us for the simple reason that those orders, if any, were given clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Act and that no subordinate court was competent to give any orders in contravention of the existing law. In view of these facts, we are clearly of the opinion that the order given by the lower-courts is correct and calls for no interference. The result is that the application is dismissed.