Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dalip Singh And Ors vs State And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:41498) on 9 October, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:41498]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7128/2005
1. Lr.s of Dalip Singh -
1/1 - Jasweer Singh s/o Dalip Singh, Age-35 years
1/2- Virendra Kumar s/o Dalip Singh, Age-31 years
1/3- Satnam Singh s/o Dalip Singh, Age-29 years
All are R/o22 M.D. Teh.-Gharsana, Dist.- Sri Ganganagar.
1/4- Sumitra Devi w/o Bagga Singh D/o Dalip Singh, Age-40
years
1/5- Gurjeet Kuar w/o Gurmeet Singh D/o Dalip Singh, Age-42
years
Both are R/o Peerkaamdiya, Teh.-Tibbi, Dist.-Hanumangarh.
2. Lr's of Surjeet Singh -
2/1- Sawarn Kaur w/o Surjeet Singh, Age-50 years
2/2- Harvindra Singh s/o Surjeet Singh, Age-30 years
2/3- Ajeet Singh s/o Surjeet Singh, Age-24 years
All are R/o M.D., Teh.-Gharsana, Dist.- Sri Ganganagar.
2/4- Rajvindra Kaur w/o Kulvindra Singh, Age-26 years
R/o-13 APD, Teh.- Sri Vijaynagar, Dist.-Sri Ganganagar.
3- Lr's of Foja singh s/o Kishan Singh -
3/1 Prem Kaur w/o Foja Singh, Age-57 years
3/2- Gurmeet s/o Foja Singh, Age-37 years
3/3- Ranjeet s/o Foja Singh, Age-31 years
R/o-22, M.D., Teh.-Gharsana, Dist.-Sri Ganganagar.
3/4- Chinder Kaur d/o Foja Singh w/o Pappu Singh, Age-39
years
R/o-25 KYD, Teh.- Khajuwala, Dist.-Bikaner
3/5- Suman d/o Foja Singh w/o GurjantSingh, Age-34 years
R/o- Lohara, Teh. And Dist.-Muktsar, Punjab
3/6- Vimla d/o Foja Singh w/o Raj Singh, Age-32 years
R/o Dablil Rathan, Teh. And Dist.- Hanumangarh.
4. Harnam Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Age-60 years R/o-22 MD,
Gharsana, Dist.- Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Sri Ganganagar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar.
3. Arjun Singh Son of Saldar Singh (correct name Ranga Singh)
resident of 20 M.D. (B) Teh.- Gharsana, Dist.- Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L.Joshi
Ms. Kirti Pareek
Mr. Salam Khan
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jaya Dadhich
[2024:RJ-JD:41498] (2 of 6) [CW-7128/2005]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
09/10/2024
1. The instant writ petition lays challenge to order dated
06.10.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Gharsana, District
Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), whereby
the sale affected by petitioners' predecessor-in-title, namely,
Saldar Singh has been declared void; the land has been resumed
and Tehsildar has been ordered to record the land in the name of
the State.
2. The facts narrated in short are that one Saldar Singh, being
the landless person was allotted 25 bighas land at Chak 20 M.D.
(B) on 11.04.1978.
3. On 27.03.1986, said Saldar Singh entered into an agreement
with prepositus of petitioner Nos. 1-3 and petitioner No.4
(hereinafter referred to as 'the purchasers') to sell such land on
payment of consideration for Rs.1,50,000/-. A sum of
Rs.1,40,000/- was paid at the time of agreement and the
possession was handed over to the buyers.
4. Since the said Saldar Singh did not execute the sale deed,
the purchasers instituted a suit for specific performance, which
was decreed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar by his judgment and decree
dated 16.12.1999.
5. Pursuant to the decree aforesaid, a registered sale deed
dated 09.04.2003 came to be executed in favour of the petitioners
[2024:RJ-JD:41498] (3 of 6) [CW-7128/2005]
and khatedari sanad in the names of Dalip Singh, Surjeet Singh,
Foja Singh and Harnam Singh came to be issued and the land was
accordingly mutated in their name.
6. A complaint came to be filed by one Arjun Singh claiming
himself to be son of Saldar Singh. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Gharsana proceeding in furtherance of said complaint passed
impugned order dated 06.10.2005 inter-alia observing that the
owner of the land (Saldar Singh) had transferred the land without
obtaining prior consent in writing from the State Government and
therefore, the sale was void.
7. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the land came to be registered in the name of purchasers
(petitioner/petitioners' predecessor) on account of judgment and
decree passed by competent Civil Court on 16.12.1999. He
submitted that once the competent Civil Court has passed a
decree and ordered a sale deed to be executed in favour of the
purchasers (petitioner/petitioners' predecessors), the Sub
Divisional Officer could not have ignored the decree and pass the
order impugned.
8. It was argued that with effect from 22.04.1991, the
provisions under section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act,
1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954') have been
made inapplicable in relation to the area in question and
therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer was not legally justified in
setting aside the sale in the year 2005. He submitted that when
the applicability of provision of section 13(1) of the Act of 1954
has been done away with, there was no reason/ground for which
[2024:RJ-JD:41498] (4 of 6) [CW-7128/2005]
the Sub Divisional Officer could declare the sale to be illegal,
simply because a formal consent from the State Government was
not obtained.
9. Ms. Jaya Dadhich, learned counsel appearing for the State
submitted that admittedly, Saldar Singh had entered into an
agreement to sell without taking prior consent from the State
Government, hence, the transaction between Saldar Singh and the
purchasers was contrary to law. She argued that the Sub
Divisional Officer has rightly invoked provision of section 13(1) of
the Act of 1954 and no infirmity can be found in the order dated
06.10.2005.
10. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder,
submitted that the purchasers (petitioners and their predecessors)
are in cultivatory possession of the land since 1986 and a
registered sale deed has been executed in their favour in the year
2003. He alternatively argued that even if this Court finds some
substance in the contention of the State that the agreement to sell
entered into without prior consent of the State Government was
invalid, a lenient view be adopted and purchasers' property rights
be not negated on hyper technical ground of not taking previous
consent of the State Government.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
12. True it is that, prior to entering into an agreement to sell, the
khatedar tenant - Saldar Singh did not obtain prior consent of the
State Government. A perusal of the order impugned passed by
Sub Divisional Officer shows that he was swayed by the fact that
[2024:RJ-JD:41498] (5 of 6) [CW-7128/2005]
on account of not obtaining the consent, the State was deprived of
summons fee, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer.
13. The sole reason for setting aside the sale has been the
absence of prior consent of the State Government and non-
payment of summons fee. According to this Court, simply because
the predecessors in title of Saldar Singh due to illiteracy or
ignorance of law failed to obtain prior consent, the rights duly
crystallized in favour of the purchasers (petitioner/predecessors of
the petitioners) cannot be set at naught, that too after 20 years of
the contentious sale.
14. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is not in dispute
that the agreement to sell was executed in the year 1986 and the
decree came to be passed by the trial Court on 16.12.1999, by
which time the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act of 1954
ceased to apply in the area and over subject land.
15. According to this Court, since provision of section 13(1) of
the Act of 1954 ceased to operate from the year 1991 and the sale
deed which is the basic document for transfer of the land in favour
of the predecessors in title came to be executed on 09.04.2003, it
cannot be said that the consent of the State Government was
required or was mandatory, more particularly when the same was
executed in light of the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1999.
16. A perusal of section 13(1) of the Act of 1954 reveals that a
prior consent is mandatory in case of transfer by way of sale, gift,
mortgage etc. The purchasers had simply agreed to purchase the
land on 27.03.1986. Legally no transfer or sale had taken place.
The transfer or sale was made on 09.04.2003, when the sale deed
[2024:RJ-JD:41498] (6 of 6) [CW-7128/2005]
came to be executed, as provided under the provisions of Transfer
of Property Act. On the date of transfer, i.e. 09.04.2003, the
provision of section 13(1) of the Act of 1954 became admittedly
inoperative. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
17. That apart, even if it is assumed that prior consent of the
State Government was necessary, this Court is of the view that for
such a trivial lapse on the part of the seller, the entire sale
transaction cannot be anulled, more particularly, when there is no
other ground for which the sale can be said to be invalid or
irregular.
18. There is yet another angle to the case in hands. Even if it is
held that the agreement executed on 27.03.1986 was in violation
of section 13 of the Act of 1954, then as per section 13-A of the
Act of 1954, all the transfers made in contravention of section
13(1) of the Act of 1954 could be validated on payment of
applicable compound fee.
19. As a consequence of discussion foregoing, the present writ
petition is allowed and the order dated 06.10.2005, passed by Sub
Divisional Officer, Gharsana, District Sriganganagar, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
20. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
52-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
