The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of tenants to Khatedari rights under Section 15-AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, based on their status as tenants at the commencement of the Act.

Rajesh Balia, J.-These nine (sic ten?) appeals arise out of the proceedings which have a chequered history. All the respondents in these appeals claim to be admitted as tenants on the agricultural land situated in the erstwhile Jagir of Chhatargarh in the erstwhile State of Bikaner, now in the Bikaner district. The lands-fall within the area irrigated by the Rajasthan Canal (now known as Indira Gandhi Canal). The Jagir of Chhatargarh was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, on 23rd of August, 1954. It was the case of the respondents that they were regularly paying the rent to the erstwhile Jagirdars and, thereafter, they have paid the rent to the State Government. According to them, after the resumption of Chhatargarh Jagir, they became tenants of the State Government by operation of the provisions of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1952’) and consequently the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for Short, ‘the Act, 1955’) came into force from 15th October, 1955 and they became Khatedar tenants under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It was further the case of the respondents that prior the the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, they were governed by the Tenenacy Act of the Bikaner State concerning the tenancy rights in the land in question and which according to them, were heritable and transferable. In 1958, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was amended and Section 15-A was inserted envisaging that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13 or Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 1955 or any other law for the time being in force, or in any lease, patta or other document, land in the Rajasthan Canal area leased out on any terms whatsoever shall be deemed to have been let out temporarily within the meaning of the proviso to the said sub-section of Section 15 of the Act and no Khatedari rights shall accrue or shall be deemed ever to have accrued in any such land leased out as aforesaid.

2. In the first instance, on challenge to validity of Section 15-A by a number of persons, it was held to be ultra vires by this Court in (1) Jassuram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1963 Raj 72. Thereafter the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was included in Schedule IX of the Constitution and the Revenue Authorities refused to recognise the Khatedari rights of the persons in land or the area falling within the territory of Rajasthan Canal and treated those occupants as trespassers, as a result of which proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 or Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act were initiated against some of the persons and standing crops of some of the tenants were attached.

3. In theback-drop, 492 writ petitions were filed before this Court between 1969 and 1972 which included the petitions fifed by the respondents in these appeals respectively, challenging the validity of Section 15-A of the Act of 1955 on various grounds and for quashing the proceedings taken for their eviction as unauthorised occupants under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act/Rajasthan Colonisation Act, by holding them to be Khatedar tenants under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. These petitions, in the first instance, came to be decided by a learned Single Judge (Hon’ble V.F Tyagi. J.) by a common order dated 18th April, 1972. The learned Single Judge upheld the validity of Section 1 5A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The learned Single judge further directed all the petitioners to hand over the land to the State Government, soon after the then standing crop is harvested by them and left the State Government free to take action in respect of those lands in accordance with the provisions of the law, for that purpose. These directions were issued on the premise that the petitioners, while obtaining the interim orders, who were in possession of the land in question had given a definite undertaking that if