IMPORTANT POINT
If the Zamindar is not in occupation of the Khudkasht land on the date of vesting he is not entitled to claim Khatedari right in the land under the Rajasthan Zamindari Abolition Act.

Headnote:Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959-Sections 29, 43 r/w Sections 5(23) and 183-Khatedari right-Condition precedent to claim-Zamindar must be in possession of khudkasht land on day of vesting-Appellant not in possession of land in question as same stood mortgaged usufructurily as on date of vesting under Zamindari Abolition Act-Not entitlted to maintain suit for recovery of land from any other person.
Held : On a reading of the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act noted above it is clear that a Zamindar who is in possession/occupation of Khudkasht land on the date of vesting of the estate becomes a Khatedar tenant on abolition of the Zamindari right under Section 29 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. Under the said section a Zamindar becomes a Malik of the Khudkasht land in his occupation and as Malik he shall be entitled to all the rights conferred and all the liabilities imposed on a Khatedar tenant by or under the Act. It follows as a corollary that if the Zamindar is not in occupation of the Khudkasht land on the date of vesting he is not entitled to claim Khatedari right in the land. The scheme behind this provision is that if a Zamindar or Biswedar is in actual occupation of cultivable land on the date of abolition of his Zamindari right then he should continue to be in possession of such land. This is in accordance with the object of bringing about agrarian reforms by giving the land to the person in cultivating possession of the land. If the Zamindar is not in occupation of the khudkasht land on the date of vesting then such land vests in the State along with the other lands subject to the provisions in the Zamindari Abolition Act. In respect of such land Zamindar is not entitled to claim any right of possession and consequently is not entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of possession of the land from any other person. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-On analysis of the case of the parties and the contentions raised on their behalf the question which arises for determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants can be said to be khatedar tenants of the land in dispute. If this question is answered in the affirmative then the further question for consideration will be whether the right of the appellants in the land in dispute was extinguished under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Tenancy Act ). The High Court of Rajasthan having answered the first question in the negative and dismissed the suit the plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment.

2. The factual matrix of the case relevant for appreciation of the question for determination, may be stated thus:-Late Chet Singh held zamindari rights in respect of the disputed land situated in Village Mohammadpur, of Tehsil-Dholpur in the State of Rajasthan. As he was serving in the army he had engaged Sohan Singh for cultivation of the land. Since Sohan Singh got his name recorded in the revenue records as the owner of the land Chet Singh filed a suit, against him before the Assistant Collector, Dholpur. In the said suit a compromise was entered into between the parties and possession of the property was delivery by Sohan Singh to Chet Singh. In the said compromise it was averred that Chet Singh was the Khudkasht Kashatkar of the disputed land and that Sohan Singh voluntarily handed over possession of the land to Chet Singh.

3. Chet Singh mortgaged the land with Charan Singh for a period of ten years for satisfaction of the loan amounting to Rs. 300/- vide the registered mortgage deed dated 22.9.1956. Chet Singh expired in 1965 leaving the appellants as his legal heirs. As Charan Singh did not hand over possession of the land even after expiry of the period of mortgage the appellants filed a suit, under Section 43(3) read with Section 183 of the Tenancy Act against Charan Singh seeking recovery of possession of the land. The Additional District Collector, by the order dated 12.5.1983 in case No. 142/82 decreed the suit and directed Charan Singh to hand over vacant possession of the land in dispute to the appellants declaring them as Khatedar kashtkar . Charan Singh was further directed to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs.3400 as penalty for illegal occupation of the land during the seventeen agricultural years after expiry of the mortgage period. In the appeal, Appeal No. 253 of 1983, filed by Charan Singh the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur by the order dated 15.7.1985 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Additional District Collector. The second appeal, RTA No. 144/85, filed by Charan Singh before the Rajasthan Revenue Appellate Board, was dismissed by the order dated 22.6.1993. Charan Singh expired on 25.2.1991 during pendency of the appeal and the respondents herein were substituted as his legal heirs. The respondents challenged the order of the Revenue Appellate Board in CWP No. 4159/93 before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court by the judgment dated 24.2.1994 allowed the writ petition, quashed the concurrent orders of the statutory authorities and dismissed the suit. The said judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.

4. The thrust of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent decisions of the statutory authorities on the erroneous finding that they are not entitled to recover possession of land in dispute. The learned counsel contends that after abolition of the Zamindari right of the appellants under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 (for short the Zamindari Abolition Act ) the appellants were entitled to retain the land in dispute which was a part of their khudkasht land as recorded in the revenue records.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned judgment submitted that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 498

IMPORTANT POINTIf the Zamindar is not in occupation of the Khudkasht land on the date of vesting he is not entitled to claim Khatedari right in the land under the Rajasthan Zamindari Abolition Act.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
If the Zamindar is not in occupation of the Khudkasht land on the date of vesting he is not entitled to claim Khatedari right in the land under the Rajasthan Zamindari Abolition Act.