RAJPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions raise a common question with regard to the validity of the cider dated 30th April, 1978 passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and therefore, all these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) IN Rajpal Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 361/78), the petitioners are the vendees of 25 Bighas of land in square No. 50 Chak 9 MN Tehsil Padampur, under a registered sale deed dated J7th February, 1972, executed by Sukhram respondent No. 5. It appears that the vendor Sukhram, respondent No. 5, has filed a suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for ejectment of the petitioners, in the court of the Sub Divisional Officer Karanpur (Revenue), District Sri Ganganagar, with the allegation that he belongs to a Schedule Caste and that the sale deed executed. by him an favour of the petitioners, who are by caste Hindus is void under Section 42 of the Act and that the possession of the petitioners over the land is illegal -In the said suit, the trial Court, by order dated 8th March, 1978, passed under Section 212 of the Act, has appointed the Tehsildar, Padampur as the receiver of the property in dispute. On 2nd May, 1978, the said receiver issued a notice for the auction of the cultivatory rights on the land in dispute. Before any auction could be held in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, an order dated 30th April, 1978 had been passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. In his aforesaid order dated 30th April, 1978 which is addressed to all the Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, has stated that a number of suits relating to the lands of Harijans which have been sold to caste -Hindus are pending and in those suits, standing crops had been attached and the possession of the land after auction, has been delivered to caste - Hindus and this has given rise to great dissatisaction amongst the Harijans and that in order to remove the aforesaid discontentment amongst the Harijans, it was necessary to introduce uniformity in the management of the lands under attachment. The Collector, in his order dated 30th April, 1978 directed that in the next year, the arrangements for the cultivation of the lands under attachment should be made in such a way that the land is released in favour of the Harijan who is claiming it after taking security @ Re. 25/ - per bigha for un -irrigated land and @ Rs. 75/ - per bigha for irrigated land and that in all cases, in which the Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildars have been appointed as receivers, the aforesaid arrangements should be made and report should be submitted to him within 15 days. In pursuance of the direction contained in the aforesaid order of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 30th April, 1978, the Tehsildar Padampur, by his order dated 11th May, 1978 directed that the possession of the land in dispute, which had been entrusted to him as receiver by the trial court, should be given to Sukhram, respondent No. 5, as Sukhram had given surety in the amount of Rs. 75/ - per bigha as per the order of the Collector dated 30th April, 1978. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 11th May, 78 passed by the Tehsildar, Padampur, the possession of the land in dispute was handed over to Sukhram, respondent No. 5 on 17th May, 1978, by the Patwari. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30th April, 1978, passed by the Collector, sri Ganganagar and the action taken by the. Tehsildar and the Patwari in pursuance of the said order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction quashing the order dated 30th April, 1978, passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and declaring that the auction taken by the Tehsildar and the Patwari in pursuarce of the aforesaid order is wholly illegal. After the filing of this writ petition, the petitioners on 6th July, 1978, moved an application before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Karanpur, wherein they submitted that the receiver is an officer of the court and he was holding the possession of the lands in dispute on behalf a of the court in the interest of the parties and he was not bound by the directions given by the Collector in his order dated 30th April, 1978 and that the receiver had acted illegally in taking action in compliance with the order of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 30th April, 1978 and that the aforesaid order dated 11th May, 1978 passed by the receiver may be recalled and the cultivatory rights in the land in dispute may be disposed of by the regular auction No orders have been passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer on the said application of the petitioners. The petitioners have also moved an application before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar with the request to withdraw the order dated 30th April, 1978 passed by him and also met the Collector, Sri Ganganagar on 12th July, 1978 The said application is said to have been rejected by the Collector but a copy of the order passed by the Collector on the said application has not been supplied to the petitioners.

(3.) IN the writ petitions, the petitioners have submitted that the Court had appointed the Receiver in order to protect the rights of the rightful claimant of the land and that the Tehsildar, in the discharge of his functions as the Receiver is not a subordinate to the Collector and the Collector has no jurisdiction to give any direction to the Receiver, In the writ petitions the petitioners have also submitted that when the Receiver auctions the cultivatory rights of the land he does so in order to protect the rights of the rightful claimant of the land to whom the produce of the land during the pendency of the suit will go as per the final decision in the suit and that as a result of the direction contained in the order dated 30th April, 1978 passed by the Collector Sri Ganganagar, land will be allowed to be cultivated by a party to the suit on a surety of Rs. 25/ - or Us 75/ - per bigha being given, and that thereby the party which is the rigtful owner of the land will stand dispossessed of the land in question and will not be able to get anything by way of mesne profits compensation or damages for being deprived of possession of the land and that the order is thus violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution.