Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. All these objections have been considered and answered by the concerned officer. As regards the transfer made in favour of the N.B.C., it was observed that the transfer made in the year 1967 in favour of the National Ball Bearing Company, an industrial unit; could not have been recognised as it did not fall under the exception provided by Section 30-D or Section 30-DD of the Rajathan Tenancy Act. As regards the transfer made in favour of Rameshwar Dhabi, it was observed that in view of the provisions contained in Section 30-DD of the Act, it could not be recognised, because the sale-deed was registered on December 31, 1969. It was further observed that the S.D.O: had no jurisdiction to hold that 11 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land was exempted from resumption as the case was remanded to him by the Board of Revenue for giving a chance to the petitioner to exercise his option under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 30E and not to go into the merits of the case. In pursuance of the above noted order, the file was sent to the Additional Collector "(1), Jaipur, who issued a notice to the petitioner to submit his objection, if he so desired, but the petitioner did not choose to appear before the Additional Collector and, ultimately the Additional Collector, after taking into consideration the various authorities of the Board of Revenue, enumerated in details in the Order, held that 11 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land was, in fact, an agricultural land, covered by the definition given in Section 5(24) of the Tenancy Act. The Additional Collector also held that it was not within the jurisdiction of the S.D.O., to make a correction in an order which was upheld by the Board of Revenue. As regards the transfers made in favour of the above noted three persons, N.B.C., Girraj, and Rameshwar Dhabi, learned Collector held that as they did not fall within the exceptions, provided under the provisions contained in Section 30-DD of the Act, they could not be recognised.

18. National Ball Bearing Company is admittedly an industrial unit manufacturing Ball Bearings. It has nothing to do with agricultural produce. It cannot be termed to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. Section 30-DD of the Act provides that the transfer of land exceeding 30 standard acres of land made, by a person prior to the 1st December, 1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled in Rajasthan or in favour of his son or brother intending to take to the profession of agriculture and capable of cultivating land personally and who had attained the age of maturity on or before the said date, shall be recognised. The Expalnation 1 to Section 30-DD of the Act reads: "The expression, 'Agriculturist' means a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture and cultivates land by his own labour or by the labour of any member of his family or along with such labour as afroesaid with the help of hired labour or servant on wages payable in cash or in kind and shall include an agricultural labourer and a villlage artison." By no stretch of imagination, National Ball Bearing Company, an industrial unit, can be termed to be an 'agriculturist'. It appears that the Revenue authorities, including the S.D.O., before whom the petitioner's case was argued, for the reasons best known to themselves, did not even care to read Section 30-DD of the Act, otherwise they could not have made such a mistake which is apparent on the face of the record. The order of the Revenue authority is laconic. Recognition of such transfers is against the very intent and purpose of the legislation.