RAHIM BUX Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions, the petitioners seek to Challenge the order passed by the Authorised Officer, Salumber determining the ceiling area applicable to Khuman Singh under Chapter III -B of the Rajas than Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Ceiling Law'). Khuman Singh filed a return on September 9, 1968 under the provisions of the old Ceiling Law and on enquiry in respect thereof was made by the Authorised Officer, Salumber. During the pendency of these proceedings under the Old Ceiling Law, Khuman Singh transferred considerable area of land to various persons including some land to his two sons, Pushpender Singh and Amrendra Singh by two separate gift deeds dated May 28, 1970. Rahim Bux, petitioner in writ petition No. 269 of 1977 purchased 7 Bighas 11 Biswas of land, situated in village Udaipuriya from Pushpender Singh vide registered sale deed dated March 25, 1972 cut of the land which was gifted by Khuman Singh to his son Pushpender Singh vide gift deed dated May 20, 1970 Thakurdas, petitioner in writ petition No. 271 of 1977 similarly purchased 32 Bighas 18 Biswas of the land in the same village Udaipuriya from Amrendra Singh, the other son of Khuman Singh vide registered sale deed date February 28, 1972. This land formed part of the land which was gifted by Khuman Singh to Amrendra Singh vide gift deed dated May 22, 1970. The Authorised Officer (Ceiling) by his order dated April 7, 1976 refused to recognise the transfers made by Khuman Singh in favour of his son Pushpendra Singh and Amrendra Singh vide gift deeds dated May 28, 1970 because according to him the said transfer were not protected by the provision of sub -section (2) of Sec. 30 DD of Chapter III B of the Old Ceiling Law. The ceiling area applicable to Khuman Singh was, therefore, determined by the Authorised Officer by his order dated April 7, 1976 after refusing to recognise the two gifts dated May 28, 1970 made by Khuman Singh in favour of his son Pushpendra Singh and Amrendra Singh. The aforesaid order passed by the Authorised Officer was also confirmed on appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur vide his order dated May 31, 1976 so far as the non -recognition of the aforesaid two gifts is concerned. The appellate authority was also of the view that although the aforesaid transfers by way of gifts were made by Khuman Singh within the specified time yet the other conditions requisite for recognition of such transfers, as specified in sub -section (2) of section30 DD of the Old Ceiling Law, were not fulfilled. Both the petitioners Rahim Bux and Thakurdas desire to challenge by means of these writ petitions the order passed by the Authorised Officer dated April 7, 1976. Thakurdas has also challenged in his writ petition the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated May 31, 1976.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the petitioners is that the principles of natural justice were violated in as much as the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the concerned authorities and that the impugned orders were passed behind the back of the petitioners inspite of the fact that their rights were affected by such orders. A simple answer to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for two petitioners is that the transfers nude in their favour by Pushpendra Singh and Amrendra Singh were pendente lite transfers and the principle of lis pendens, on which Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has been enacted is applicable to such transfers. The proceedings relating to the determination of ceiling area applicable to Khuman Singh under the Old Ceiling Law started as early as in the year 1968 as Khumansingh filed his declaration in those proceedings on September 9, 1968, and then he filed a revised declaration on January 8, 1971. Thus it is clear that during the pendency of the proceedings for determination of the ceiling area under Chapter III -B of the Old Ceiling Law, Khumansingh transferred some lands to his two sons, Pushpendrasingh and Amrendrasingh and the doctrine of lis pendens is fully applicable to such transfers Turner L.J. in the leading case of Bellamy vs. Sabine, (1857) I Deg & J, 566 observed: -