STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KHAYALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11. 2. 1986 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders issued by the Colonisation Tehsildars and the proceedings taken by them under s. 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) IT may be mentioned that by notification dated 30. 5. 1978 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra Part IV C (II) dated 8. 6. 1978, the powers of the Collector were conferred on the Colonisation Tehsildars. That notification reads as under: "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act No. XXVII of 1954), the State Government hereby appoints all Colonisation Tehisldars of the State to perform such functions and to exercise such powers of Collector under s. 22 of this Act in the village specified as 'colony' from time to time under this Act and are falling in their respective jurisdiction. " By virtue of the aforesaid notification, the Colonisation Tehsildars initiated proceedings under s. 22 of the Act and passed orders for eviction and other orders, which were challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions inter-alia, on the ground that the aforesaid notification does not define functions and powers of the Collector, which have been conferred on the Colonisation Tehsildars and the notification is vague and ambiguous and, therefore, the Colonisation Tehsildars cannot exercise any powers under s. 22 of the Act. This contention of the petitioners has been upheld by the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge proceeded to consider the contention that the expression 'to perform such functions and to exercise such powers of the Collector under s. 22 of this Act' cannot be interpreted to mean 'to perform all functions and to exercise all powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. ' IT was contended before the learned single Judge that the notification is an incomplete document and the Colonisation Tehsildars do not derive any power or authority by virtue of this notification to perform or exercise any function or power of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. This contention was accepted by the learned single Judge and it was observed by him that the notification dated 30. 5. 1978 does not authorise the Colonisation Tehsildars to perform or exercise all functions and powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. The word 'such' used twice in the notification to qualify the words 'function' and 'power' is neither a superfluous expression nor it is synonymous with the word 'all'. The word 'such' as an adjective is used for something that has been stated earlier or which is to be specified or exemplified in the portion which is to follow. IT has been further observed by the learned single Judge that the words 'such' means 'of that kind', 'the like kind' or the 'same kind'. The word 'such' is used to avoid repetition of the expression already indicated, described or specified or it denotes the context which is about to be indicated, suggested or exemplified. The learned Judge further observed that in the context of s. 22 of the Act, it is not possible to construe the expression, to perform such functions and to exercise such powers of the Collector under s. 22 of this Act' to mean to perform all functions and to exercise all powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. The learned Judge also observed that the word 'such' cannot be treated as redundant and he concluded that he has no alternative but to hold that the Colonisation Tehsildars have no jurisdiction or competence to perform or exercise the functions and powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act.

(3.) IN the result, these appeals have no force, so they are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. .