BALU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Balu under sec. 66(2) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order of the Additional Collector Ajmer dated 14.4.1957 presumably under sec. 44 of the Act.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as will. A short and simple point of law is involved for determination in this case, and to appreciate the same he facts of this case may briefly be stated as follows: - -Balu, Ganpat etc. recorded Bhuswamis of Khata Nos. 249 and 764 including 10 Khasra numbers measuring 45 bighas 5 biswas and 13 Khasra Nos. measuring 90 bighas 11 biswas. In both these Khatas respectively sold Khasra Nos. 669 and 670 measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas 10 biswansis to one Shri Rani Bux S/o Ladu Ram of Liri on 29.9.1956. The transferer applied before the Tehsildar Beawar for sanctioning mutation in favour of the transferees. The Patwari while required to report the facts of the case pointed out that the sale had been carried out through registered deed; that the transferee holds three standard acres; that the transferer holds 14 standard acres out of which half standard acre has been transferred and that as the a the requirements of Rule 53 of the Rules framed under the Act have not been complied with the alienation be declared void The Naib Tehsildar forwarded these papers to the Collector who after hearing the parties held that as the provisions of the Act were ignored the transfer was void. He further directed the ejectment of the transferee from the land with the right to recover the purchase money from the transferee by due process of law. It was also directed by him that as the transferers had more than 8 standard acres land with them the land in question became vacant and vested in the Government and the seme was open for allotment to landless tenants by the S.D.O. Beawar. This appeal has been directed against this order. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have frankly conceded before us that the decision of the learned Additional Collector in -as -much as it relates to the declaration of the transfer as void and ejectment of the transferee is concerned it is perfectly valid and is not open to any challenge. Evidently this part of decision is in conformity with the requirements of the Act. Sec. 34 of the Act lays down that where Bhuswami wants to transfer by sale land comprised in his holding he shall offer it for sale in the prescribed manner and the categories of persons mentioned in the Act which are as below:

(3.) The appellants admit that the requirement11! of this section were not complied with and hence as laid down in sec.43 of the Act the transfer being in contravention of the provisions of the Act becomes void The consequences that fallow from a transfer being void are given in sec. 44. Sub - sec.(1) of this section lays down that where a transfer of any holding or part thereof has been made in contravention of this chapter the transferee shall notwithstanding anything contained in any law be liable to ejectment from such holding or part. The proviso makes it clear that transferee shall have the right to recover the purchase money from the transferor by due process of law. The applicants, therefore, have no objection to that part of the order of the learned Additional Collector which declares the transfer void and directs the ejectment of the transferee from the parts of the holding transferred in the case. Their objection relates to that part of the order which directs the vesting of the land in dispute in the Government and authoriser the S.D.O. Beawar to allot it to landless persons. To determine the validity or otherwise of this objection the provisions contained in sub - sec. (2) of sec. 44 of the Act have to be examined. It runs as below: - -