Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Raj vs Delbag Singh And Ors. ... on 29 August, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:27593]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548/2009

State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Delbag Singh

2. Balveer Singh

3. Jaswant Kaur @ Sheela

4. Sukhdev Kaur

5. Jasveer Kaur @ Balveer Kaur

6. Amarjeet Singh.

7. Harpal Singh

8. Jaspal Singh (All sons and daughters of Malkiyat Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 30 G.B., Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sriganganagar.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RD Bhadu, GC For Respondent(s) : Mr. BS Sandhu Mr. Lokesh Menaria

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

29/08/2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2004 (Annex.4) may kindly be quashed and set aside, and the judgment dated 25.10.2000 (Annex.3) passed by the learned Additional Collector (Adm.), Sri Ganganagar may kindly be upheld.

Any other order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

[2023:RJ-JD:27593] (2 of 8) [CW-548/2009]

2. Relevant facts of the case as culled out are that the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, Sriganganagar, vide order dated

03.08.1971, dropped the ceiling proceedings against Shri Malkiyat

Singh. The Collector, Sriganganagar, made a recommendation to

the State Government for reopening of the ceiling matter on the

ground of irregularities for which, a notice was served upon the

Shri Malkiyat Singh - father of the respondents. The case was

registered and the notices were issued while affording opportunity

of hearing and thereafter, the Additional District Collector,

Sriganganagar passed an order dated 13.03.1995, while ordering

to acquire 19.43 Bighas of land upon finding the same to be

excessive.

3. The respondents being aggrieved of the aforementioned

order dated 13.03.1995, filed an appeal bearing No.15/95 before

the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Board of Revenue vide order

dated 27.01.1997 (Annexure-2), after hearing both the parties,

allowed the appeal and the case was remanded back to the

Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar with a direction to

reconsider the matter of the respondents. The Additional District

Collecter, Sriganganagar, after affording opportunity of hearing to

the parties, passed an order dated 25.10.2000 (Annexure - 3)

while ordering to acquire 26.3 bighas of land being excessive of

ceiling limits.

4. The respondents being aggrieved of the order dated

25.10.2000, filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer

and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the

Board of Revenue vide order dated 15.04.2004 (Annexure-4),

[2023:RJ-JD:27593] (3 of 8) [CW-548/2009]

quashed the order dated 25.10.2000 passed by the Additional

District Collector, Sriganganagar.

5. Being aggrieved of the order dated 15.04.2004 (Annexure-

4), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made following

submissions:-

(a) That the impugned order dated 15.04.2004 (Annexure-4),

has been passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, by not taking

into consideration the provisions of Section 30 E of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955),

which reads as under:-

"30-E. Maximum land that can be held and restriction on future acquisitions. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, as from a date notified by the State Government in this behalf-

(a) continue to hold or retain in his possession in any capacity and under any tenure whatsover land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, or

(b) acquire, by purchase, gift, mortgage, assignment, lease, surrender or otherwise or by devolution or bequest, any land so as to effect an increase in the extent of his holding over the ceiling area applicable to him: Provided that different dates may be so notified for different areas of the State."

(b) That while determining the ceiling land for 7 members in the

family, the Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar in its order

dated 25.10.2000 (Annexure-3) has properly examined the same

and found 26.3 Bighas of land in excess of the ceiling limit but the

Board of Revenue without appreciating the facts and without

determining the ceiling limit for the 7 members in the family, has

passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2004.

determining the land of respondents as 55 Bighas 10 Biswas

[2023:RJ-JD:27593] (4 of 8) [CW-548/2009]

whereas, the fact is that the Additional District Collector,

Sriganganagar vide order dated 25.10.2000, assessed the land as

88 Bighas out of which, the respondents own 61.17 Bighas of land

and hence, 26.3 Bighas of land was rightly found to be in excess

of the ceiling limit.

(d) That the land was purchased by Shri Malkiyat Singh (owner

of the land) and given to the land owner's wife namely Smt.

Swarn Kaur. He also submits that the land which was purchased

earlier, was sold later and therefore, the ceiling limit should be

applied while including 18.06 Bighas in the name of land holder's

wife namely Smt. Swarn Kaur in the total land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, urges, that the writ

petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated

15.04.2004 (Annexure-4) may be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents made

following submissions:

(a) That the details of the land of the Delbag Singh at Sr.No.5 ad

measuring 8 Bighas, is the same land having murabba No.46

which has been sold of by Malkiyat Singh (assessee who is at

Sr.No.3) to Shri Delbag Singh (assessee who is at Sr.No.5) by way

of declaration letter dated 15.01.1971 and thus, the said piece of

land which has been added twice, could not have been done.

(b) That once the land has been sold on 15.01.1971 to Delbagh

Singh, then it could not be entered in the name of Malkiyat Singh

as well. Meaning thereby that the same piece of land has been

considered twice for determining the ceiling limit and thus the

Board of Revenue has rightly passed the order dated 25.10.2000

while holding that as it was having the complete record with it at

[2023:RJ-JD:27593] (5 of 8) [CW-548/2009]

the time of passing the order and thus, was in a position to deal

with each and every aspect of the matter.

while including the land admeasuring 12 bighas of Murabba No.19

as the said land was sold to one Bagga Singh on 03.04.1963 and

the said transaction is covered under the provisions of Section 30-

DD of the Act of 1955.

(d) That Section 30D of the Act of 1955 provides that for the

purpose of determining the ceiling areas in relation to a person

under Section 30 C, any voluntary transfer effected by him on or

after the 25th day of February, 1958, otherwise than by way of

partition or in favour of a person who was landless person before

the last date, shall be deemed to be a transfer calculated to defeat

the provisions of this chapter and shall not be recognized and

taken into consideration. Relevant portion of Section 30 D of the

Act of 1955 is reproduced hereunder:-

"30D. Certain transfers not to be recognised for fixing ceiling area- under Section 30-C-(1) For the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a person under Section 30-C, any voluntary transfer effected by him on or after the 25th day of February, 1958, otherwise than

(i) by way of partition, or

(ii) in favour of a person who was a landless person before the said date and continued to be so till the date of transfer, of the whole or a part of his holding shall be deemed to be a transfer calculated to defeat the provisions of this Chapter and shall not be recognised and taken into consideration and the burden of proving whether any such transfer falls under clause (i) or clause (ii) shall lie on the transferor:

Provided that if by way of any such transfer as is mentioned in clause (ii) land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to the transferee has been transferred to him, such transfer to the extent of

[2023:RJ-JD:27593] (6 of 8) [CW-548/2009]

such excess shall not be recognised or taken into consideration for the purpose of this sub-Section:

Provided further that no such transfer as is mentioned in clause (ii) shall also be so taken into consideration or recognised if it has been made after the 9th day of December, 1959."

9. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon

the judgment dated 29.04.1982 passed by this Court in DBCWP

110/1982 in Ram Ratan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

referring to the cut-off date mentioned in it for the application of

Section 30 E of the Act of 1955, which is laid down as 01.04.1966.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for

the parties jointly submit that the provisions of the Old Act of

1955 would be applicable in the present case as the matter has

been decided under the provisions of the Old Act of 1955.

11. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue has held that

from the record it is clear that on 01.04.1966, the assessee

Malkiyat Singh was holding total 43 bighas 10 biswas of land and

out of this land, 8 bighas of land from Murabba No.46 was sold to

his son Delbagh Singh on 28.05.1970 and since he was the

member of the family, the said 8 bighas of land would be included

in the land of the assessee as it was not clear from the revenue

record that the area of the land in Murabba No.46 was more than

8 bighas or that the assessee was holding 16 bighas of land in

Murabba No.46 out of which 8 bighas of land was transferred to

Delbagh Singh.

12. The Board of Revenue has also held that the land

admeasuring 24 biswas 10 biswas of Murabba No.29, was

transferred through registered sale-deed dated 20.07.1956 and

since the said transfer had been made under Section 30D of the

[2023:RJ-JD:27593] (7 of 8) [CW-548/2009]

Act of 1955 before 25.02.1958, therefore, the said land,

admeasuring 24 bighas 10 biswas of Murabba No.29 was not

being held by the assessee.

13. So far as sale of the land admeasuring 12 bighas of Murabba

No.19 is concerned, it was held by the Board of Revenue that the

said sale can only be recognized if it is proved that the land has

been sold to an agriculturist and a bonafide resident of State of

Rajasthan and that he is eligible to cultivate the land

independently as is provided under Section 30DD(i) of the Act of

1955 but since the assessee has not been able to give satisfactory

proof, the said land would be included in the land being held by

the assessee.

14. The Board of Revenue, after taking into consideration the

record of the case has held that as per the provisions of the Act of

1955, the assessee was holding the land as follows:-

pd 39 th-ch-ds-

                       eqjCck uacj              {ks=Qy
                            19          12 ch?kk
                            42            8 ch?kk
                            43          24 ch?kk 10 fcLok
                            52            3 ch?kk
                            46            8 ch?kk
                           ;ksx         55 ch?kk 10 fcLok

Hence, the Board of Revenue held that the family of the

assessee (7 in number) was entitled to hold 61 bighas 17 biswas

of land (46 bighas 8 biswas of land from one unit of family + 15

bighas 9 biswas of land for two additional members) and since the

total land held was measuring 55 bighas 10 biswas by the

[2023:RJ-JD:27593] (8 of 8) [CW-548/2009]

assessee, the land was not excess of the ceiling law prevailing at

the relevant time.

11. In view of the above, this Court observes that the finding of

the Board of Revenue that the assessee was not having land in

excess of the ceiling limit does not call for any interference.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant writ petition, being