SURAJMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by Surajmal is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 5th July, 1976, dismissing the revision preferred by him against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, dated 13th June, 1974, upholding that of the Assistant Collector, Bundi, dated 25th September, 1971, by which the Assistant Collector declared 54 bighas 15 bis was of land belonging to the petitioner, as being in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him under section 30e (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) THE material facts are these: THE total holding of the petitioner comprises of 114 bighas 18 biswas of land in village Tirath. Before the Assistant Collector, the petitioner claimed the benefit of section 30dd of the Act alleging that there had already been a partition between him and his son effected by a decree of the Civil Court in the year 1969 and that he had already transferred 26 bighas 10 biswas of land to one Kesra. Incidentally, 2 bighas 10 biswas of land belonging to the petitioner had been taken over by the Irrigation Department for the construction of a canal.

(3.) ON the terms of the first proviso to section 30e (2) of the Act, as it now stands, there can be no doubt that the petitioner was not entitled to any option, because he has all his land in one and the same Tehsil. The question then arises whether the Legislature can be attributed with the intention to differentiate between two classes of land holders. If the legislative intent was not to benefit one class of land-holders alone, viz. , persons holding land in more than one Tehsil, i,e. , in different Tehsils, the Government may consider whether the first proviso to section 30e (2) of the Act should not be suitably amended. That would remove the obvious lacuna in the Act, so as to extend the benefit to another class of land-holders, viz. , persons holding different parcels of land in the same Tehsil. There is no reason why one class of land-holders should be differentially treated as against another class of landholders. There is no rational basis for such differential treatment. That, however, is a matter for the State Legislature to consider. We rest ourselves content by pointing out the lacuna in the first proviso to section 30e (2) of the Act.