Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated May 6, 1977 Annexure-6, by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated March 20, 1972 Annexure 5 and by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh dated June 24, 1970 Annexure 4 be quashed and the petitioner be declared khatedar tenant of the land allotted to them in the year 1946 for establishing a Bone Mil) and developing Orchard.

2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are as under: An area of 35 bighas and 2 biswas of land situated in Chosunda, Tebsil Chittorgarh was allotted to late Abdul Rehman Admani, father of Md. Ayub, proprietor of the petitioner, M/s Mewar Bone Mills, Chosundra (here in after to be referred as the 'Mills') on June 7, 1946 by the erstwhile State of Mewar. Certain conditions were imposed at the time of that allotment. One of them was, that, on 10 bighas of the land allottee would put up a Bone Mill within a specified period, and the remaining land would be developed as an orchard that too within a specified period. Another condition was that the allotment would be on the basis of 'shikmi' for eleven years and thereafter the question of realising 'nazrana' would be examined. In the year 1961 the Government of Rajasthan held that the Bone Mill was established only on an area of six bighas and ten biswas. The Collector, Chittorgarh was therefore, directed to allot that area to the petitioner on the basis of a 99 year lease on payment of premium as well as annual ground rent. The directions were also issued for taking over possession of the 'emining land, as the petitioner had failed to fulfil the conditions of allotment. When this order of the Government was going to be executed by the Revenue Officers, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the State of Rajasthan in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh on the ground that with the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on October 15, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') they became Khatedar tenant of the land in dispute and were therefore, not liable to ejectment. The suit was dismissed. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The petitioner then went in revision before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, but could not succeed. A review petition was filed there, which too was rejected on January 23, 1980.

5. Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner, having been considered a 'shikmi' at the initial stage and then being recorded as ghair-khatedar tenant' in the revenue records, had acquired khatedari rights by virtue of Section 15 of the Act from the date it came into force i.e. October 15, 1955. According to the learned Counsel the petitioner is a 'grantee' as defined in Section 5(12) of the Act, and therefore, is a tenant according to Section 5(43) of the Act. Mr. Sharma next argued that on account of the land in dispute being hilly track 'orchard' could not be developed. That, this difficulty was realised by the concerned authorities and the Collector, Chittorgarh and Commissioner, Udaipur Division, recommended that khatedari rights should be given to the petitioner. Despite that the Government passed the order for granting 99 year lease for the land utilised for establishing the Mill and dispossessing the petitioner from the remaining area, which is aga'nst the provisions of the Act.

7. Issue No. 3 in the suit, filed by the petitioner, translated into English reads as under:

Whether plaintiff was a 'ghair khatedar' tenant of the suit land on, or before, 15.10.1955 and whether he become a khatedar tenant on 15.10.1955'.

8. The learned Members of the Board have discussed the implications of the term 'shikmi' and taken into consideration the definition of this term given in 'Kanun Mal Mewar' enacted in 1947 to amend and consolidate the then existing laws relating to land revenue and tenancies.

9. Assailing that part of the judgment Mr. Sharma contended that the allotment being in the year 1946, 'Kanun Mal Mewar' could not have been retrospectively applied to that allotment and therefore, the Board was in error in looking to the definition in 'Kanun Mal Mewar' for the term 'shikmi'.

10. It is noteworthy that the learned Members were alive of this position and had only taken help from the definition in 'Kanun Mal Mewar' for the term 'shikmi' to understand the intention or idea of using the term 'shikmi' in the year 1946. 'Shikmi' tenancy was of the lowest order. Such a tenant could not claim khatedari rights because he was liable to ejectment at the will of the authorities concerned.