1. Land allotment and subsequent sale — Application for validation under Section 13-A, Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 — Dispute over transfer restrictions and land resumption. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 708
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Legal Representative Of Bhagwani Devi, Bharat Bhusan - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2729 Of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24939 Of 2019)
Decided On : 11-04-2023
The Court held that the repeal of the 1971 notification by the 1985 notification lifted the embargo on land transfers under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. As the 1991 notification did not re-impose such restrictions, the land sale was valid and the resumption of land was set aside.
Headnote:Rajasthan Colonization Act - Land Allotment - Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (Act No.XXVII of 1954) - Section 13-A, Section 13 FACT OF THE CASE The case involves a dispute over the validity of land transfer under the Rajasthan Colonization Act. The appellant purchased land that was previously subject to a canceled agreement and subsequent application for depositing compounding fee, which was rejected by the authorities. FINDING OF THE COURT The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's order, citing re-imposed restrictions on transfers through a subsequent notification. However, the Supreme Court found no reason for interference with the Single Judge's order and allowed the appeal. ISSUES The main issue revolved around the validity of land transfer under the Rajasthan Colonization Act in light of subsequent notifications repealing previous restrictions. RATIO DECIDENDI The court emphasized that subsequent notifications had repealed previous restrictions on land transfer, rendering them unenforceable. It held that reliance on a later notification re-imposing restrictions was without substance. FINAL DECISION The appeal was allowed, quashing the impugned judgment and restoring the order of the learned Single Judge.
Act Referred
Allotment of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Project Region to the Temporary Agricultural Lease Holders and Other Landless Persons Rules: R.2(9)
RAJASTHAN COLONIZATION ACT: S.13(a), S.13
Rajasthan Colonization allotment and sale of government land in Indira Gandhi canal area Rules: R.2(1)(viii)
RAJASTHAN COLONIZATION ACT: S.13(a), S.13
Rajasthan Colonization allotment and sale of government land in Indira Gandhi canal area Rules: R.2(1)(viii)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether restrictions on land alienation were lifted by a 1985 notification or re-imposed by a 1991 notification under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. The 1985 notification repealed the 1971 restriction on transfers, while the 1991 notification actually excluded the operation of the Act in the relevant areas. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. A notification repealing a previous restriction on land alienation lifts the embargo on transfers, unless a subsequent notification validly re-imposes such restrictions. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Appeal allowed — Judgment of the Division Bench quashed — Order of the Single Judge restored. (Para 19 )
6. Did the notification dated 03.10.1985 affect the restrictions on land transfer?
Yes, the notification dated 03.10.1985 repealed the notification dated 30.11.1971, thereby lifting the embargo on transfers that had been created by the 1971 notification. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. What was the effect of the notification dated 22.04.1991 on the operation of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954?
The notification dated 22.04.1991 excluded the operation of the Act in respect of areas situated inside the Indira Gandhi Canal and Gangnahar Projects, rather than re-imposing restrictions. (Para 18 )
8. Can land be resumed by the State without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party?
The court noted that land could not have been resumed in favour of the State Government without providing an opportunity of hearing to the party involved. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT :
(B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 06.03.2019, thereby allowing the intra court appeal filed by the respondents/State, which was in turn filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2007 allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
3. The facts in the present case are not disputed. The land in question was allotted to Shri Lal Chand, son of Shri Ghasi Ram, and sanad was issued in his favour. The said Lal Chand proceeded to sell the land for consideration by way of agreement to sell dated 05.06.1986 in favour of Bela Ram, son of Chamba Ram. Bela Ram made an application under Section 13 -A of the RAJASTHAN COLONIZATION ACT , 1954 (Act No.XXVII of 1954) (for short, ‘the Act’) for declaration of the same as valid by making payment of compounding fee to the State.
4. Subsequently, the agreement came to be cancelled by mutual consent. However, on 09.08.1990 Chandra Bhan, son of Bela Ram made an application for depositing the compounding fee, stating that in the family partition, the said land had fallen to his share. The said application was rejected by the Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar vide order dated 24.04.1995.
5. The said order came to be challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which also rejected the appeal on 14.08.1995. Being further aggrieved, a second appeal came to be filed before the Board of Revenue, which was also rejected on 13.07.1998. Being aggrieved thereby, a writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders came to be filed by the present appellant, who had purchased the property in the interregnum on 04.07.1991.
6. During the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge, learned government advocate fairly submitted that in the proceedings relating to Bela Ram under Section 13 -A of the Act, the land could not have been resumed in favour of the State Government, at least without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
7. Learned counsel further stated that in view of the amendment in law i.e. Section 13 of the Act and subsequent notification dated 22.04.1991, the sale in favour of the writ petitioner was unassailable. As such, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the orders including the order of resumption of land.
8. Being aggrieved thereby, the State preferred an appeal. In appeal, the learned Division Bench reversed the order. It held that the finding with regard to non-following of principle of natural justice was unsustainable. It further observed that in view of the notification dated 22.04.1991, the restrictions on transfers was still in operation and as such, set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
10. Shri Ankur Sood, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the restrictions on alienation in so far as the property in question is concerned was brought into effect vide notification dated 30.11.1971. He further submitted that, however, vide subsequent notification dated 03.10.1985, notification dated 30.11.1971 has been repealed, thereby removing the restrictions. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
11. Shri Sandeep Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the contrary submits that in view of the notification dated 22.04.1991, the restrictions have been re-imposed and as such the finding of the Division Bench warrants no interference.
12. It is pertinent to be noted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was basically on the concession made by the learned counsel for the State.
13. In any case, for the reasons recorded hereinbelow, we find that there was no reason for the learned Judges of the Division Bench to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
14.
