SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 199

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P.N. BHAGWATI AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
Jaila Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Civil, Appeals Nos. 1704-1705 of 1.974; D/- 2-5-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. L. Sanghi Sr. Advocate (M/s S.R. Srivastava, Manmohan Mridul & Badri Das Sharma with him) for Appellants (In C.As. Nos. 1704-1705 of 1974); Mr. Niren De Att. Gen. (M/s. S. T. Desai & G. C. Kashliwal Sr. Advocates & S. M, Jain Advocate with him) (In C.As. Nos, 1704 - l705 of 1974) for Respondents; M/s. J. B. Dadachandji & K. J. John, Advocates for Intervener (In C.As. Nos. 1704-1705 of 1974).

Advocates:
Badri Das Sharma, G.C.KASLIVAL, G.L.SANGHI, J.B.DADACHAN, K.J.JOHN, MANMOHAN MRIDUL, NIREN DEY, S.M.Jain, S.P.SRIVASTAVA, S.T.DESAI

Headnote:

Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 - Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders and other Landless Persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1971 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Tenants - Applications for allotment of land - Allotment of Government Land - Petition challenging Post-1955 Rules as violative of Article 14 - Applications were invited for allotment of land under those rules - Application for allotment was disposed of on 27- l2-1969 by allotting 14 bighas and 14 biswas of land on permanent basis - These 1967 Rules were the subject matter of certain writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court which ended with the decision of that Court striking down certain of those Rules - Thereafter two sets of Rules called respectively Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Pre-1955 Temporary Tenants "Government Land Allotment) Conditions. 1971 and Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post-1955 - Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders and other Landless Persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1971 were promulgated. Applications were again invited for allotment of land, under the Post-1955 Rules and Jaila Singh was allotted another 10 bighas of land - Rest of the land originally allotted to him reverted to State - He filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the Post-1955 Rules as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He prayed that Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 may be declared to be illegal or in alternative Post-1955 Rules may be declared to be violative of Article 14 of Constitution and for an appropriate order in respect of lands allotted – Held, Court find it difficult to conceive of the appellants having given up that plea before the Appellate Bench having argued it before the learned. Single Judge - It is urged on behalf of State of Rajasthan that there may be reasons why pre-1955 tenants are treated differently in the matter of payment of price. If there were any, they were not put forward before the learned Single Judge. But as materials regarding it are not available before us, we propose to say nothing about it. But we may point out that, as the rules stand there seems to be some discrimination in the matter of price between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants, in that pre-1955 tenants, who hold land exceeding 25 bighas, have to pay nothing for land up to 25 bighas, while post-1955 tenants, who hold land less than 15 bighas, have to pay price for land which may be allotted to them so as to make up 25 bighas. We are mentioning this only so that the State may look into the matter of price and set it right to avoid any discrimination - There seems to be no difficulty at all in all this because none of tenants, whether they are pre-1955 or post-1955 tenants, have any vested rights. It is duty of the State to treat fairly all classes of tenants in the Rajasthan Canal Area whether pre-1955 or post1955 tenants - In the result we hold that Condition Conditions and definition of landless person as contained in Rule 2 (1) (xiii) as well as Rule 3 (2) of Postl955 Rules are void as they are discriminatory under Article 14 of Constitution and they are struck down - It is open to the State to frame new rules applying to both pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants without any discrimination between them - Appeals are allowed.

Judgment

A. ALAGIRISWAMI, J.:- These appeals raise the question of the validity of certain rules made under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. 1954. The facts necessary for the decision of this case are as follows:

2. Jaila Singh, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 1974, was allotted 50 bighas of uncommand land, in the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 in the Ganganagar District of the Rajasthan State. The area in which the land is situated was declared, a Colony Area of the Rajasthan Canal project under the Act in 1960. In 1967 the Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1967 were promulgated and applications were invited for allotment of land under those rules. Jaila Singh s application for allotment was disposed of on 27- l2-1969 by allotting 14 bighas and 14 biswas of land on permanent basis. These 1967 Rules were the subject matter of certain writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court which ended with the decision of that Court in State v. Ramdhan (AIR 1973 Raj 71) striking down certain of those Rules.Thereafter two sets of Rules called respectively Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Pre-1955 Temporary Tenants "Government Land Allotment) Conditions. 1971 and the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post-1955 . Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders and other Landless Persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1971 were promulgated. Applications were again invited for allotment of land, under the Post-1955 Rules and Jaila Singh was allotted another 10 bighas of land. The rest of the land originally allotted to him reverted to the State. He filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the Post-1955 Rules as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He prayed that the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 may be declared to be illegal or in the alternative the Post-1955 Rules may be declared to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and for an appropriate order in respect of the lands allotted , to him.

3. Sahi Ram, the husband of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1705 of 1974. had been allotted 24 1/2 bighas of land for temporary cultivation in Rajasthan Canal Area in Ganganagar District. He had also been allotted 13 1/2 bighas of command land in the year 1952 on a permanent basis and 6 bighas and 12 biswas of command land and 4 bighas and 11 biswas of uncommand land for permanent cultivation. These lands were included in the Colony Area of the Rajasthan Canal Project in 1960. After the post-1955 Rules came into force the 24 1/2 bighas land was ordered to be resumed on the ground that Sahi Ram was not a landless person. In the writ petition filed by the appellant the contentions and prayers were the same as in Jaila Singh s case. We shall deal with them at the appropriate places in so far as they relate to matters raised in the appeal.

4. In both the writ petitions the contention on behalf of the State of Rajasthan was that owing to the insertion of Section 15A in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 Khatedari rights could not accrue to the tenants under Section .15 (1) of the said Act and the possession of such tenants was given protection who were holding since 15-10-55 and thereafter upto the commencement of the Pre-1955 Conditions by making permanent allotment under the Pre-1955 Conditions . The various impugned rules were contended not to be discriminatory.

5. Justice Gupta of the Rajasthan High Court who heard the two writ petitions filed by Jaila Singh and Dhapi Bai, in a batch of 340 writ petitions, upheld the validity of the Pre-l955 Conditions as well as the Post l955 Rules. He took the view that the question of discrimination can arise only in respect of persons, who are similarly situated, that; the pre-1955 tenants cannot be said to stand on the same footing as the post-1955 tenants inasmuch as the two classes of tenants came into temporary cultivation at different periods of time and cannot be s

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top