MANA Vs. KALYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference arises out of the objections raised by Shri S. N. Parikh in the above mentioned cases when they came up for hearing before two different Single Benches of this Board. The learned counsel contended that the Board of Revenue as at present composed had not been properly constituted within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act inasmuch as the State Govt. had not determined the strength of the Members of the Board of Revenue as required under sec. 4 (2) of the aforesaid Act. It was, further, averred that the State Govt. had also failed to prescribe the qualifications of the persons eligible for appointment as the Chairman and the Members of the Board of Revenue as contemplated in sub-sec. (4 ). It was, therefore, argued that the composition of the Board as existing at present stood vitiated. He also questioned the validity of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act on the ground that the notification No. F. 12 (13) Rev. II/64, dated 12. 6. 1956 was issued by the State Govt. on a date when the State Govt. had no authority to act under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. When this reference came up for consideration before a Larger Bench of this Board earlier, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Advocate General. It was his contention that the Larger Bench of this Board was not competent to hear and adjudicate upon this reference. Arguments were heard on this preliminary objection and the same was overruled by the order of the Larger Bench dated 24. 3. 1966. The reference has now come up before this Larger Bench for consideration on merit.

(2.) IT is contended by Shri S. N. Parikh that originally the Board of Revenue was constituted under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949 (XXII of 1949 ). IT was stipulated under sub-sec. (1) of this Section that the Board shall consist of a Chairman and such number of other Members as the Raj-Pramukh may from time to time determine and appoint. IT was, further, stipulated that all appointments made under sub-sec. (1) shall be notified in the Rajasthan Gazette. In pursuance of the provision contained in Sub-sec. (1) referred to above, the State Government issued notification No. 906-VI II/49, dated 26. 10. 1949, whereby the Raj-Pramukh was, pleased to order that the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan shall consist of a Chairman and two other Members. IT is his contention that under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act also, it is contemplated that Board shall consist of a Chairman and such other Members not less than 3 as the State Govt. may from time to time determine and appoint. But the State Govt. has failed to notify the number of Members who would serve on the Board from time to time, although the appointments made to the Board have been notified in the Gazette as and when they were made. He contends that the failure of the Govt. to notify in the Gazette the strength of the Members of the Board of Revenue from time to time as required under Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act vitiates their appointment.

(3.) MAXWELL then proceeds to draw a line of distinction where the prescriptions of the Act affect the performance of a duty and where they relate to a privilege or power. He states that where powers, rights or immunities are granted with a direction that certain regulations, formalities or conditions shall be complied with, it seems neither unjust nor inconvenient to exact a rigorous observance of them as essential to the acquisition of the right or authority conferred, and it is therefore, probable that such was the intention of the Legislature. But when a public duty is imposed and the statute requires that it shall be performed in a certain manner, or within a certain time, or under other specified conditions, such prescriptions may well be regarded as intended to be directory only in cases when injustice or inconvenience to others who have no control over those exercising the duty would result if such requirements were essential and imperative.