Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chiranji And Ors vs Bor Ajmer And Ors on 5 January, 2017
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3909/2001
1. CHIRANJI S/0 SHRI HANDU CHOBDAR, AGED ABOUT 64
YEARS,
2. HARMUKH S/O SHRI MANGAL, BY CASTE, CHAMAR,
3. MUKANDI S/O. SHRI LOHRE, BY CASTE CHAMAR,
ALL R/O VILLAGE BEHRAMPUR, TEHSIL LAXMANGARH,
DISTT. ALWAR (RAJ.)
----PETITIONERS
Versus
1. BOARD OF REVENUE, AJMER, (RAJ.).
2. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH TEHSILDAR KATHUMAR,
DISTT. ALWAR (RAJ.)
----RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. Shriram Yadav
For Respondents : Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, Addl.GC
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 05/01/2017
By the Court:
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 16th July, 1996 (Annexure.2) passed by the Additional Collector, Alwar; order dated 28 th April, 1997 (Annexure.3) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar and order dated 15th June, 2001 (Annexure.4) passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer whereby the action of the respondents to cancel allotment of land in favour of the (2 of 8 ) [CR-74/2013] petitioners was upheld.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners being agriculturists and being eligible for allotment of land under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for agriculture purposes) Rules, 1970 were allotted agricultural land admeasuring 4 bighas and 8 biswas out of 13 bighas and 4 biswas land of Khasra No.961 vide the allotment order dated 6th September, 1975 issued by the Assistant Collector, Laxmangarh (Alwar) of village Behrampur, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar. After allotment of the land, the petitioners got possession over the allotted land and started cultivating the same. As per the petitioners on their cultivating the allotted land in accordance with the rules, after ten years khatedari rights were given to them and they were recorded as khatedars in the revenue record. Despite this, the Addl. Tehsildar, Kathumar presented application dated 23 rd February, 1996 before the Addl. Collector, Alwar contending that as per the conditions of the allotment the petitioners were not cultivating the allotted land and as such they have contravened the condition of allotment. Upon receiving the application, the Addl. Collector, Alwar initiated proceedings under Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules and after hearing the petitioners, cancelled the allotment by the order dated 16th July, 1996. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order in the court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 28th April,1997. Against the order (3 of 8 ) [CR-74/2013] passed by the RAA, Alwar the petitioners filed appeal before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer which came to be dismissed by the order dated 15th June, 2001. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.
The matter was listed before the co-ordinate Bench on 29th October, 2015 where the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in jamabandi for samvat 2056-2059, petitioners have been recorded as cultivating khatedars and the jamabandi for samvat 2056-2059 was not taken into consideration by the authorities below in right earnest, Shri Dharmendra Parrek, Addl. Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents prayed for an adjournment to file affidavit of the concerned official regarding issuance and contents of Jamabandi relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the respondents had filed an affidavit wherein it has been specifically stated that khatedari rights were conferred upon the petitioners as per the directions issued by the competent revenue official.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the action of the respondents on the following grounds:-
(i) that once the Khatedari rights have been accrued to the petitioners, the allotment could not have been cancelled under rule 14(4) of the Rules ;
(ii) that the allotment in the present case was made in favour (4 of 8 ) [CR-74/2013] of the petitioners in the year 1975 and the order of cancelling the allotment was passed on 23.2.1996 after a lapse of 21 years which is not permissible; and
(iii) that the petitioners are in possession of the land and are cultivating the same since allotment and have not violated any of the conditions of the allotment.
On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the orders passed by the revenue authorities be declared illegal and arbitrary and the same be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Principal Seat at Jodhpur) in the case of Pat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1995 DNJ(Raj.) 592 and also on a Single Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan vs. Baluram (since deceased) through LRs. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.6625/2015, decided on 23rd September, 2015.).
Shri Dharmendra Pareek, learned Addl. Government Counsel has stated that no limitation is prescribed to initiate proceedings under Rule 14 of the Rules and has supported the orders passed by the revenue courts.
Now I shall proceed to deal with the above grounds canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, one by one.
So far as point No.(i) is concerned, it is an admitted case (5 of 8 ) [CR-74/2013] of the respondents that khatedari rights were conferred upon the petitioners as per the directions issued by the competent revenue officer and in the Jamabandi for the samvat years 2056-2059 the petitioners were shown as cultivating Khatedars. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners have been recorded as Khatedars of the land in dispute and have not violated condition of the allotment.
Considering the scope of sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of the Rules of 1970, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Patram (supra) has observed as under:-
"11. The next question, which requires consideration, is: whether the Collector has powers under rule 14(4) of the Rules, 1970 to cancel the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners after the conferment of the Khatedari rights in their favour ? The Khatedari rights conferred upon the tenant can be withdrawn only in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the Collector has no power under rule 14(4) of the Act to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioners with respect to the land in which the Khatedari rights have already been conferred upon them because after the conferment of the Khatedari rights, the applicability of the Rules comes to an end. The powers under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1970 can be exercised by the Collector before conferment of the Khatedari rights and after the conferment of the Khatedari rights, the petitioners acquired all the rights for which they are entitled under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and thereafter the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1970 has no application. The order, passed by the Collector, Bikaner, exercising its powers under Rule 14(4) of the Rules, 1970, is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The order passed by the learned Collector and the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue confirming the order passed by the Collector, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set-aside."
(6 of 8 ) [CR-74/2013] So far as the point regarding delay in cancelling allotment of land in favour of the petitioners by the respondents is concerned, the law is well settled that where the power has been conferred upon an authority to effectuate a purpose then that has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and within reasonable time. A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Patram (supra) has allowed the writ petition of the petitioners therein when there was a delay of 16 years.
Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, the learned Addl. Government Counsel could not explain as to why reference was made after an inordinate delay of 21 years.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1996 (2) WLC (Raj.) 36 held as under:-
"21. In view of the settled position of law, as stated above, simply because the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and Section 232 of the Act of 1955 do not provide for the period of limitation, it does not mean that the authority on whom the power is conferred, can invoke the same at any time. This is so because each and every authority on whom the power is conferred, is expected to exercise the same in just and reasonable manner. The concept of exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres with it the concept of exercising the same within a reasonable time. If the power is not exercised within reasonable time, the invocation of the power after inordinate delay and the exercise of the same after unreasonable length of time, would be unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, the action taken by exercise of such power would be illegal and void. If the requirement of exercise of power within reasonable time is not read into the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and Section 232 of the Act of 1955, then the provision itself would become unconstitutional. It can never be presumed that the Legislature intended to confer power on any authority to exercise the same in unjust and unreasonable manner. Therefore, to uphold the constitutionality of the aforesaid provisions, the requirement of exercise of the same power within reasonable period has got to be read into the same.
22. In the case of The Government of India v. The Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras reported in AIR 1989 SC 1771, the question arose as to the constitutional validity of Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. The said Rule provided for residuary powers of recovery of sums due to Government. Since no period of limitation was prescribed, it was (7 of 8 ) [CR-74/2013] contended that the provision of Rule 12 was unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court negatived the contention. Then in para 6 of the reported decision, the Supreme Court observed as follows :--
".... While it is true that Rule 12 does not prescribe any period within which recovery of any duty as contemplated by the Rules is to be made, but that by itself does not render the Rule unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case."
23. The contention that the land was a Muafi Murti Mandir Land, therefore, the power could be exercised after any length of time, cannot be accepted. The question is not with regard to the nature of the land. The question which is required to be examined is as to whether the revisional power conferred upon the authority concerned under the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and under the provisions of Section 232 of the Act of 1955, could be exercised after unreasonable period of time. As held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the power could be exercised within reasonable time whenever the statute does not provide for the period of limitation. What would be the reasonable period, would depend upon the facts of the case and the nature of the order sought to be revised.
24. In our opinion, the settled legal position as stated above, would apply to the agricultural land in possession of the tenants/ khatedars also once the cases of such tenants/ khatedars are decided and their rights have been concluded and pursuant to the same they are in possession of the land. Ordinarily the revisional power under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and under Section 232 of the Act of 1955, cannot be exercised after a period of one year from the date of the order sought to be revised. Once a tenant/khatedar acquires tenancy/ khatedari rights and continues to be in possession of the land, his rights cannot be called in question after unreasonable delay. Such tenant/khatedars are required to be treated at par, for all purposes, with all other tenants/khatedars who acquired tenancy/ khatedari rights over the land. To permit the exercise of revisional powers under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and/Or under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 after unreasonable delay, would amount to putting imprimatur of the Courts on the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power. Within a period of one year the tenant/khatedar of the land would have spent money for the improvement of the land, he would have arranged his affairs of life on the basis that he is in occupation of the land, he would have entered into several transactions on this basis and made many commitments. Therefore, ordinarily revisional powers under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and under Section 232 of the Act of 1955, cannot be exercised after a period of one year. If this requirement of reasonable length of time is not read into the aforesaid provisions, the provisions would become unconstitutional.
Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Anr. vs. D.Narsingh Rao & Ors. {(2015) 3 SCC 695} has held as under:-
(8 of 8 ) [CR-74/2013] "11. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight.
Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority."
In view of the discussions herein above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, hence the same is allowed and the order dated 15th June, 2001 (Annexure-4) passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, the order dated 28 th April,1997 (Annexure-3) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar and the order dated 16th July,1997 (Annexure-2) passed by the Addl. Collector Alwar are quashed and set aside.
(PRAKASH GUPTA)J. Bairwa/51