STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PADAMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this revision petition the State seeks to attack the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 26-12-64 on the ground that the learned R. A. A. has seriously erred in law in not taking into consideration the effect of the 17th Amendment of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is averred that the authority of Surjaram Versus State (1963 RRD Page 1) is no more good law in view of the aforesaid amendment. In that case the Rajas-than High Court had struck down sec. 15-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as ultra vires of the Constitution on the ground that sec. 15a seeks to take khatedari rights without payment of compensation and offends the guarantee provided by the Constitution under Art, 31 (2) IT is now urged before me that as a result of the 17th Amendment of the Constitution sec. 15-A has been resuscitated and in ignoring this provision of law, the learned R. A. A. has fallen into an error. In support of this contention, my attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Pooran Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 19/66 decided on 29-8-66 ). In this case their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court repelled the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the decision of Rajasthan Tenancy Act was struck down by their decision as offending the guarantee provided by the Constitution under Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution and as such had no application in that case. Rejecting this plea it was observed by their Lordships that this argument was clearly untenable after the amendment of the Constitution by the 17th Amendment whereby Schedule 9 to the Constitution was amended and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was added to it. IT was discussed by their Lordships that by this amendment Art. 31 (b) of the Consti-tution became applicable to it and the validity of sec. 15-A, notwithstanding the judgment of this court could not be challenged on the ground of want of compensation.