Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajmata Krishna Kumari vs State And Ors (2024:Rj-Jd:1405) on 10 January, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:1405]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1560/2001
1. Late Rajmata Krishna Kumari Wd/o His Late Highness Maharaj
Shri Hanwant Singhji Shaib of Jodhpur, Umaid Bhawan Palace,
Jodhpur. (Since deceased)
1/1 Smt. Chandresh Kumari d/o Late Maharaj Shri Hanwant
Singhji, aged about 77 years r/o 260, Umed Heritage,
Ratanada, Jodhpur 342006 (Raj)
1/2 Smt. Shailesh Kumar D/o Late Maharaj Shri Hanwant Singhji
aged about 76 years, R/o M-68, Ground Floor, Greater
Kailash -1, S.O. South, Delhi - 110048
1/3 Ms. Shivranjani D/o Maharaja Gajsingh Ji, Aged about 50
years, R/o Umaid Bhawan Palace, Jodhpur.
2. M/s Dara Engineering & Infra Pvt. Ltd., 201 B, Ground Floor,
Basant Nagar, New Delhi through its Shri Pappu Ram S/o Shri
Gopal Ram Dara, Aged about 51 years, R/o 15, Ashok Vihar,
Shikargarh, Jodhpur.
3. Smt. Indra Bishnoi W/o Shri Pappu Ram, Aged about 51
years.
4. Dharmesh Bishnoi S/o Shri Pappu Ram, Aged about 28 years.
5. Pappu Ram S/o Shri Gopal Ram Dara, Aged about 51 years.
Petitioner Nos.3 to 5 R/o 15, Ashok Nagar, Shikargarh,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Revenue Secretary,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer.
3. The Collector, Jodhpur.
4. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit
Mr. Tarun Dudia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Dayal Bhadu
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:1405] (2 of 19) [CW-1560/2001]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order REPORTABLE 10/01/2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 21.08.1997 and 12.03.2001.
Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:-
1. That Late Maharaja Shri Hanwant Singh Ji, who was ruler of former State of Jodhpur, entered into a covenant for formation of the State of Rajasthan. Accordingly, under the provisions of said covenant, a list of private properties of former Ruler of Jodhpur State was confirmed by the Govt. of India vide letter of the State Ministry, Government of India dated 24.03.1949. On death of late Maharaja Shri Hanwant Singh Ji on 26.01.1952, Maharaja Gaj Singh Ji succeeded and became the exclusive and absolute owner of all the immovable properties. The President of India recognised Maharaja Gaj Singh as Ruler under the Provisions of Clause (22) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. Maharaja Gaj Singh Ji gave possession of the land (Barani-unirrigated) having an area of 50 Bighas in Khasra No.632 of Partridge Preserve Area Jodhpur to the petitioner for cultivation as tenant in the year 1961 and the petitioners are in the cultivatory possession of the aforesaid land since then.(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:1405] (3 of 19) [CW-1560/2001]
2. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur served a notice dated 02.07.1962 under section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 on the petitioner, calling upon her to deliver possession of the land in question alleging that she was a trespasser on the said land. The Tehsildar dropped the proceedings initiated by him under section 91 of the Act of 1956 when he was apprised of the fact that the land in question forms part of Private properties of the former Ruler of State of Jodhpur and that the petitioner was his (former ruler's) tenant.
3. In the year 1969, Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh Ji, requested the revenue authorities that the land in question which was in the cultivatory possession of the petitioner be mutated in her favour as she had been cultivating the land since 1961. The revenue authorities mutated the land in question in the name of the petitioner on 2.6.1972 vide Mutation No.233 after due inquiry about the cultivatory possession of the petitioner since 1961 and on the basis of the letter dated 30.12.1969 of Maharaja Gaj singh Ji. The revenue authorities also issued pass book to the petitioner recognizing her as Khatedar of the land in question and the petitioner had been paying land revenue to the revenue authorities.
4. The Collector, Jodhpur issued a notice under section 9A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Landowners Estate Act, 1963 on 13.11.1975 to the petitioner requiring her to deliver possession of the land in question having an area of 50 Bigha in Khasra No.632 on or before 22.11.1975. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1877/1975 before this Court (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (4 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] challenging the aforesaid notice dated 13.11.1975. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed vide order dated 09.01.1985 while giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit her objections before the Collector, Jodhpur in support of her claim of Khatedari rights in respect of the land in question. The Collector, Jodhpur was directed to decide the objections of the petitioner, after affording her reasonable opportunity of producing evidence and after hearing her in the matter before taking over possession of the land in question.
5. The petitioner filed objections to the aforementioned notice of the Collector on 11.03.1985. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur filed reply dated 06.01.1986 on behalf of the State to the aforementioned objections. The petitioner alongwith her application dated 07.10.1985 submitted certain documents and requested the Collector to give some time to produce evidence for proving her case. However, the Collector, Jodhpur by his order dated 10.12.1990 rejected the objections of the petitioner without affording opportunity of producing evidence to him. Aggrieved of the order dated 10.12.1990, the petitioner filed an application under sections 21 & 22 of the Act No.11 of 1964 on 16.01.1991 (which was registered as Rev. Misc.No.8/86 State vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari) before the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order dated 10.12.1990 rejecting her objections without allowing her opportunity, in spite of the direction of this Court be set aside and she be allowed opportunity of producing evidence.
6. The Collector, Jodhpur vide order dated 30.03.1993 allowed the aforesaid application and re-opened the matter and allowed (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (5 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] her opportunity to produce evidence in support of her case. In pursuance of the order dated 30.03.1993, the petitioner produced certain documents in support of her claim.
7. The Collector, Jodhpur after considering the entire record vide his order dated 26.03.1996 held that the petitioner is Khatedar of the land in question and that the respondents are not entitled to evict her from the said land as she is in old cultivatory possession over the land in question and she has acquired khatedari right both under the provisions of the Act No.11 of 1965 and Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
8. The State Government assailed the validity of the order dated 26.03.1996 (Annex.7) passed by the Collector, Jodhpur by way of filing an appeal under Section 20 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-Owners Estates Act, 1963 (As amended by Raj. 15 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1975'). In the appeal so preferred by the State Government, the petitioner filed objections with respect to the maintainability of the appeal before the Board of Revenue by raising preliminary objections. The preliminary objections raised by the petitioner were rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.08.1997. Against the order dated 21.08.1997, the petitioner preferred a review petition but the same was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.03.2001 and hence the present writ petition has been filed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that when an order has been passed by the Collector under the Special (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (6 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] Act, then the provisions governing the same can be applied for filing the appeal in those cases, and therefore, in the present case since the appeal has been preferred by the State Government under Section 20 of the Act of 1975, therefore, the same has to be in consonance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1975.
10. Learned counsel further submits that an appeal can be preferred only if a person is aggrieved by any decision of the Compensation Commissioner or the Collector as the case may be under Sub Section 2 of Section 3, Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 and Sub-Section (2) of Section 11, within ninety days from the date of such decision and under Sub Section 2 of Section 15 within ninety days from the date of communication of such order. The learned counsel, thus, submits that since the order in the present case has been passed under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975, the appeal filed by the State Government under Section 20 of the Act of 1975 is not maintainable. He further submits that Section 20 of the Act of 1975 is very clear and mentions the Sections in which if an order is passed, the appeal can be preferred. Since order passed under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975 is non appeallable, therefore, the learned Board of Revenue was not right in rejecting the preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability submitted by the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel also submits that the proceedings are undertaken under the Special Act, therefore, the same will have its over-riding effect over the General Laws and, therefore, the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act cannot be made applicable in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that in an (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (7 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] identical situation, the Board of Revenue itself has taken a view that appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1975 is not maintainable if the order has been passed under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975 as held by the Board of Revenue in the case of H.H. Ambika Pratap Singh Vs. State, reported in 1967 RRD 250 and State Vs. Dr. Karni Singh, reported in 1983 RRD
414.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the power of appeal can be exercised only when the Statute provides for the same and if there is no provision in the Statute then the appeal is not maintainable. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments:
1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. P. Kesavan & Anr., reported in 2004 (9) SCC 772.
2. M/s. Shyama Charan Aggarwala and Sons, Vs. Union of India, reported in 2002 (6) SCC 201.
3. Naresh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1224.
13. Learned counsel, therefore prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the appeal pending before the Board of Revenue may be held as not maintainable.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner to the maintainability of the appeal as there is no other provision in which the order passed by the Collector under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975 can be challenged. The learned counsel submits that if (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (8 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] the appeal against the order passed by the Collector, Jodhpur is not held maintainable, then the State will be remediless and the veracity and legality of the order passed by the Collector cannot be assailed and it will become final.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that although the proceedings have been undertaken in pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975, however, actually the proceedings are in pursuance of Section 10 of the Act of 1975.
16. The learned counsel further submits that the appeal preferred by the State is maintainable and the same has been filed in consonance with Section 20 of the Act of 1975. The learned counsel for the respondents has further tried to impress upon this Court that the actual position in the matter is that the petitioner was never in possession over the said land prior to the year 1972 and the land in question stood vested in the State of Rajasthan on 01.09.1964 as per the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-Owners Estates Act, 1963 (As amended by Raj.15 of 1975) and, therefore, the Revenue Entry or Passbook in favour of the petitioner does not grant khatedari rights and is merely a revenue entry. Learned counsel for the State submits that this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Collector, Jodhpur while passing the order dated 26.03.1996. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
17. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (9 of 19) [CW-1560/2001]
18. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner Rajmata Krishna Kumari died 03.07.2018 and an application to bring her legal representatives on record was moved and the same was ordered to be allowed vide order dated 16.02.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
19. To understand the controversy in the present case, it will be appropriate to reproduce Section 9-A and Section 20 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-Owners Estates Act, 1963 (As amended by Raj.15 of 1975), which reads as under:-
"9-A. Landowner to deliver possession.- The landowner and every other person claiming through him in his estate, shall deliver the possession of the estate acquired under section 7 to the Collector immediately after the publication of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Landowners' Estates (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No.6 of 1975) in the official Gazette and if he fails to do so the Collector shall recover its possession from the landowner and such other person in the prescribed manner.
20. Appeals from the orders of Compensation Commissioner and Collector. (1) The Government or any person aggrieved by any decision of the Compensation Commissioner or the Collector, as the case may be, may --
(a) under sub-section (2) of section 3, sub-section (2) of section 10 and subsection (2) of section 11, within ninety days of the date of such decision, and
(b) under sub-section (2) of section 15, within ninety days from the date of communication of such order, appeal to the Board.(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:1405] (10 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] (2) When an appeal is made to the Board under sub- section (1), the appeal shall be heard and decided by a Bench of the Board consisting of two members. (3) In deciding an appeal under this section, the authority hearing the appeal shall follow the same procedure as is prescribed for the hearing of appeals made to it under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955). (4)The decision of the Board in an appeal under this Section shall be final."
20. The factual details which are taken note of in the preceding paras, clearly show that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the Collector, Jodhpur adjudicated the proceedings in pursuance of the Notice issued under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975. There is no quarrel to the fact that while adjudicating the proceedings under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975, the parties were given opportunity of hearing and after detailed discussion, the order dated 26.03.1996 was passed. Since the order dated 26.03.1996 was passed in favour of the petitioners, the State was well within its right to challenge/assail the validity of the same.
21. The question here is whether the order dated 26.03.1996 can be challenged by way of filing an appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1975.
22. A perusal of Section 20 of the Act of 1975 shows that an appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1975 can be filed against an order passed by the Compensation Commissioner or the Collector under certain Sections mentioned in Section 20 of the Act of 1975. In the present case, admittedly, the order has been passed by the Collector, Jodhpur under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975 and therefore, if the validity of the same is required to be assailed, (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (11 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] certainly the appeal cannot be the remedy available under Section 20 of the Act of 1975 to the aggrieved party. Since the Act of 1975 is a Special Act, therefore, the provisions of General Acts cannot be applied and therefore, the case is required to be considered as per the provisions of the Special Act only as the provisions of the Special Act will have over-riding effect over the General Laws.
23. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. P. Kesavan & Anr., reported in 2004 (9) SCC 772 in paras 8, 9 and 16 held as under:
"8. The Parliament enacted the Act which came into force on or about 24.1.1976, in terms whereof the right, title and interest of Burmah Shell in relation to its undertakings in India stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government. The effect of such vesting is stated in Section 4 of the Act whereby and whereunder, inter alia, all assets, rights, powers, authorities and privileges and all property, movable and immovable vested in the Central Government. By reason of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act where any property was held in India by Burmah Shell under any lease or under any right of tenancy, the Central Government became the lessee and tenant, as the case may be, in respect thereof as if the lease or tenancy in relation to such property had been granted to it and thereupon all the rights under such lease or tenancy was to be deemed to have been transferred to, and vested in the Central Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act provides that on the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy referred to in sub-section (1), such lease or tenancy was, if so desired by the Central Government, to be renewed on the same terms and condition on which the lease and tenancy was held by Burmah Shell immediately before the appointed day. 'Appointed day' has been defined to mean the date of commencement of the said Act which, as noticed herein before, has been specified on 24.1.1976.(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:1405] (12 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] Section 7 of the said Act provides for the Central Government to direct vesting of the undertakings of the Burmah Shell in a Government company. It is not in dispute that an appropriate notification in terms of sub- section (1) of Section 7 has been issued in favour of the appellant herein. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 provides that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall apply to a lease or tenancy which vests in a Government company as tenancy in the Central Government and reference therein to the Central Government shall be construed as the reference to the Government company. Section 11 of the Act provides for a non-obstante clause stating that the provisions thereof shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the said Act.
9. The said Act is a special statute vis-`-vis the Transfer of Property Act which is a general statute. By reason of the provisions of the said Act, the right, title and interest of Burmah Shell vested in the Central Government and consequently upon the appellant Company. A lease of immovable property is also an asset and/or right in an immovable property. The lease-hold right, thus, held by Burmah Shell vested in the appellant. By reason of sub- section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, a right of renewal was created in the appellant in terms whereof in the event of exercise of its option, the existing lease was renewed for a further term on the same terms and conditions. As noticed hereinbefore, Section 11 of the Act provides for a non- obstante clause.
13-14. The maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant' meaning thereby that general things do not derogate special things shall, thus, apply in the instant case and in that view of the matter as admittedly the appellant herein has expressed its desire to renew the lease, Sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with Sub-section (3) of Section 7 thereof shall be attracted.(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:1405] (13 of 19) [CW-1560/2001]
16. Section 5(2) and Section 7(3) of the Act are required to be given its purposive meaning, having regard to the object and purport the statute seeks to achieve. The Central Government by reason of the provisions of the said Act acquired running business undertakings dealing in distribution and marketing of petroleum products. The leases or tenancy for outlets are, therefore, continued to be kept with the Central Government or the Government company, as the case may be, so that no let or hindrance is placed in the matter of distribution of the products from established retails outlets, unless alternate arrangements are made. Having regard to the object of the Act, as noticed hereinbefore, it is difficult to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the expression mere desire by the Central Government or the appellant was not enough and they were required to show something more, as for example existence of need for renewal of the lease. The central Government or the Government company is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There are required to act fairly. It is not the case of the respondents herein that desire to get the lease renewed was actuated by any malice or ill-will or the same was otherwise unfair and unreasonable. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to construe Section 5(32) of the Act as not laying down a law not contemplating automatic renewal of the lease.
17. In Harishchandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2004) 9 SCC780, it was held : "By reason of an order passed under Section 4 of the Act, the lands are directed to be restored in the event the illegalities specified therein are discovered. The consequences contained in Section 5 of the Act applies automatically in the event an order under Section 4 of the Act is passed. Section 4 of the Act contains a non obstante clause. The said provision would, thus, apply notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or any other Act for the, time being in force. The Act is a special Act (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (14 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] whereas the Transfer of Property Act is a general Act and in that view of the matter also Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act will have no application and the consequences contained in Section 5 would prevail. Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to inter vivos transfers. It, as noticed hereinbefore, does not apply to a transfer made by operation of law. If a judicial order is passed restoring the land back to a member of Scheduled Tribes in terms of the purport and object of the statute, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be applied in such a case. The matter is governed by a special statute. Unless there exists a provision therein, an order passed thereunder cannot be supplanted or supplemented with reference to another statute."
24. The objections to the maintainability of the appeal were rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that if the appeal filed by the State is not maintainable, then the State will be remediless and the order of the Collector will become final, in the humble opinion of this Court, the view taken by the Board of Revenue is not correct, if the Statute does not provide the provision of appeal, then it cannot be held that the aggrieved person will be remediless. The Statute does not provide remedy of appeal or review, then in those circumstances, a person is not remediless as the writ petitions are filed and entertained by the Courts. Since the appeal can be filed only when an order is passed under certain Sections as mentioned in Section 20 of the Act of 1975, then in the instant case, the remedy of filing the writ petition is also available to the aggrieved party including the State. Thus, the learned Board of Revenue could not enlarge the scope of Section 20 of the Act of 1975 by entertaining the appeal against the order passed under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975. (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (15 of 19) [CW-1560/2001]
25. On the same analogy, in the case of Naresh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1224, the Apex Court in para 13 and 14 held as under:
12. It is settled law that the power of Review can be exercised only when the statue provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the concerned statute, such power of review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. This court in case of Kalabharati Advertising vs Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437, has held as under:
".........12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction.
13. ..........It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction.
14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification /modification/ correction is not permissible."(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:1405] (16 of 19) [CW-1560/2001]
26. In the similar circumstances, the Board of Revenue in the case of H.H. Ambika Pratap Singh Vs. State, reported in 1967 RRD 250 held as under:
"A preliminary objection was taken by the govt. Advocate that the appeal was not maintainable. Counsel for his highness was asked to point out under which provision of law the appeal was maintainable. He stated that sec. 20 read with sec. 3 (2) of the land reforms & acquisition of land owners estates act were the provisions in question.
Sec. 3 (2) reads - "the amount of land revenue payable in respect of any estate of a landowner shall be assessed by the collector in the manner herein after provided in this chapter."
Counsel for appellant was asked to elucidate how this was applicable to the order in question. He stated where else could he go in appeal except the board of revenue. This reply is not convincing at all. He also took up the plea of the superintending powers of the board u/s. 8 and 9 of Rajasthan Land Revenue act. Now the rajasthan land reforms & acquisition of land owners estates act is a special act and the provisions of land revenue act have not been made applicable to it. The appeal is not maintainable and fails."
27. In the case of State Vs. Dr. Karni Singh, reported in 1983 RRD 414, The Board of Revenue held as under:
"We have given careful consideration to the arguments for and against the maintainability of this appeal advanced by the learned deputy Government advocate and the learned counsel for the respondent respectively. Section 20 of the Act provides for a limited right of appeal to the Board of Revenue. Appeals under this section can be filed in respect of the matters specified under section 3(2), 10(2), 11(2) and 15(2) of the Act. Section 3(2) of (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (17 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] the Act deals with the amount of land revenue payable in respect of any estate of a landowner. Section 10(2) of the Act deals with a reference made to the Compensation Commissioner in respect of a property specified in sub section (1) thereto. Section 11 deals with refund of sums to which landowner is not entitled. Section 15 of the Act relates to the amount of compensation payable to a landowner in respect of the estate resumed. It is apparent that the order of the Collector does not fall in any of these categories. There are tyro components of the order of the Collector. In compliance of the direction of the Board of Revenue contained in the decision of a Division Bench referred to above ordered that the matter relating to the Gainer Estate be remitted to the Compensation Commissioner in consonance with the provisions of section 10(2) of the Act. Secondly in exercise of the powers of section 144 of the C.P.C. the Collector ordered that the possession of Gainer Palace and certain lands allegedly transferred by Shri Narendra Singh, taken over by the State Government pursuant to the order of the Collector dated 19-12-75, which had been set aside by the learned Division Bench of the Board, be restored to Dr. Kami Singh and others. The State has not objected to the reference having been made to the Compensation Commissioner under section 10(2) of the Act. The objection of the State is therefore regarding the order of the Collector relating to the restoration of the possession of Gajner Palace to Dr. Karni Singh. As indicated earlier, section 20 of the Act provides for appeals only in limited circumstances and against specified order. An order under section 144 of the C.P.C. is not specified therein. Prima face therefore the appeal against an order passed under section 144 of the C.P.C. in respect of proceedings under the Act does not lie to the Board under section 20 of the (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (18 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] Act. We need not examine at this stage where such an appeal may lie."
28. On a plain reading of the Section 20 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-Owners Estates Act, 1963 (As amended by Raj. 15 of 1975), it is manifest that the Section is restricted in its application. Only certain types of orders are made Appealable under the provision. The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land- Owners Estates Act, 1963 (As amended by Raj. 15 of 1975) being a Special Statute, no appeal can be entertained except under Section 20 of the Act of 1975.
29. As far as the contentions of the State Government is concerned that the petitioner was not having the possession of the land is touching upon the merits of the matter and therefore, the same is not required to be gone into at this stage as the Board of Revenue has rejected the preliminary objections of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the appeal.
30. The contention of the counsel for the respondents that actually the proceedings are under Section 10 of the Act of 1975 is noted to be rejected on the ground that since the petitioner has been issued notice under Section 9(A) of the Act of 1975, therefore, for all intents and purposes, the proceedings will be considered to have taken place in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 9 (A) and not under Section 10 of the Act of 1975.
31. At this stage, learned State Counsel submits that the respondents may be permitted to take appropriate action for assailing the validity of the order passed by the Collector on (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1405] (19 of 19) [CW-1560/2001] 26.03.1996 in accordance with law. The State is permitted to do so.
32. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The orders dated 21.08.1997 and 12.03.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue are quashed and set aside and it is held that the appeal under Section 20 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-Owners Estates Act, 1963 (As amended by Raj. 15 of 1975) against the order dated 26.03.1996 passed under Section 9-A of the Act of 1975 by the Collector, Jodhpur is not maintainable. However, it is left open to the State to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 9-Anil/-
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:09:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)