Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Wanchoo, Sharma
Inder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 133 of 1953
Decided On : 01/02/1954
RAJASTHAN (PROTECTION OF TENANTS) ORDINANCE, 1949 - SECTION 7 - TENANCY - JURISDICTION OF ANTI-EJECTMENT OFFICER - WRIT OF PROHIBITION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORDINANCE - EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE - DELEGATION OF POWER - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 228 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919, SECTION 107 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, SECTION 224 - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1926, SECTION 2(1) - U.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT (ACT NO. XXVI OF 1947) - PUBLIC SERVANTS INQUIRIES ACT, 1950 - HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND, SECOND EDITION BY VISCOUNT HAILSHAM (1933), VOLUME 9, ARTICLE 1401, PAGES 825-826 - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - JURISDICTION OF COURTS - POWERS OF HIGH COURT - WRIT JURISDICTION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sardar Inder Singh, leased his land to the petitioner, Krishi Sahkarini Samiti, Bhininagar, for a period of 10 years. The respondents, who were applicants before the Anti-Ejectment Officer, filed applications for reinstatement on different parcels of the land, claiming that they were in possession of it and were dispossessed by the petitioners. The Anti-Ejectment Officer ordered that the respondents be reinstated on the lands mentioned in their applications. The petitioners filed revision applications before the Board of Revenue, which remanded the cases for disposing them of according to law after giving notice to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the jurisdiction of the Anti-Ejectment Officer and the constitutionality of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Anti-Ejectment Officer was not a “court subordinate” to the High Court within the meaning of Article 228 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the cases could not be withdrawn under Article 228. The court also held that it was not proper for the petitioners to file a single petition in respect of all the 23 cases, as there were separate applications pending before the Anti-Ejectment Officer in which there were different applicants. The court further held that the petitioners had no right to come to the High Court for a writ of prohibition without first taking the objection before the Anti-Ejectment Officer and obtaining his decision thereon, but in the present case, the objection regarding jurisdiction did not depend upon any fact within the knowledge of the petitioners and, therefore, the petition could not be thrown off on this ground.
Issues: 1. Whether the Anti-Ejectment Officer was a “court subordinate” to the High Court within the meaning of Article 228 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether it was proper for the petitioners to file a single petition in respect of all the 23 cases? 3. Whether the petitioners had a right to come to the High Court for a writ of prohibition without first taking the objection before the Anti-Ejectment Officer and obtaining his decision thereon?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of withdrawal in Article 228 has been given only in respect of cases pending before Courts alone, which were subject to appellate or ordinary revisional jurisdiction of High Court, and not before tribunals. 2. There are 23 separate applications pending before the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Bayana, in which there are different applicants. Twenty-three separate applications for revision were filed by the petitioner No. 2 in 23, cases although they were disposed of by the Board of Revenue by a single judgment. Separate writs’ or directions or orders would, therefore, be necessary in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners in this case are entitled to any of them. 3. There is no statutory bar to a criminal revision being filed straight off in the High Court against an order of a Magistrate without first filing an application in revision in the Sessions Court. However, a practice has developed in almost all the High Courts that applications for revision against an order of a Magistrate are not entertained unless the party aggrieved has first gone in revision to the Sessions Court and obtained its decision. Such practice is very desirable in cases of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court ordered that the petitioners shall, if they so like, elect to make the present petition relate to one of the 23 cases, and file an application for consequential amendment within fifteen days, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed with costs to the contesting respondents, including Counsel’s fee Rs. 50/-.
Sharma, J.-This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sardar inder Singh and Krishi Sahkarini Samiti, Bhininagar, through its Secretary, Satya Pal Singh, against the State of Rajasthan, the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, and 23 other respondents, who were applicants before the Anti Ejectment Officer in 23 different cases under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (NO. IX Of 1949).
2. The petitioners’ case is that the petitioner No. 1 leased the whole of his land 582 bighas to the petitioner No. 2 for a period of 10 years in connection with the “GROW MORE FOOD CAMPAIGN”, and got the patta registered before the Tehsildar, Bayana, on 1-3-1952, and the possession of the land was transferred by the petitioner No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2 by the date of registration of the patta. The respondents Nos. 4 to 26 filed separate applications in the Court of S.D.O., Bayana, under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, for reinstatement on different parcels of the above-mentioned land, saying that they were in possession of it and were dispossessed by the petitioners. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bayana, on 7-7-1952, ordered that the respondents Nos. 4 to 26 be reinstated on the lands mentioned in their applications. Against this order of the S.D.O., the petitioner No. 2 filed 23 revision applications, one in each of the 23 cases, before the Board of Revenue under Section 10 (2) of the Ordinance, and the Revenue Board remandad these cases on 10-1-1953, by one judgment, for disposing them of according to law after giving notice to the petitioner No. 2. It has been averred that the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, was now proceeding to make enquiry in these cases without jurisdiction, and hence the necessity of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The grounds, on which the jurisdiction of the Anti Ejectment Officer is questioned are as follows:
.(1) There is no relationship of landholder and tenants between the petitioner No, 2 and the respondents Nos. 4 to 26, and, therefore, the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, do not apply, and the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, and the Board of Revenue have wrongly assumed jurisdiction to give protection to the respondents Nos. 4 to 26 under Section 7 of the Ordinance.
.(2) Thesaid Ordinance is ‘ultra vires’, and infringes the provisions of Articles 13, 14, 15, and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India.
.(3) Under Section 1 (3) of the Ordinance, power could not be delegated to the Rajpramukh (who ivas not the Legislature at the time of extension of the life of the Ordinance) to extend the life of the Ordinance, as the extension of the period amounted to legislation, and it could not be delegated to the Rajpramukh. The Ordinance and the extension of time for another two years were ‘ultra vires’ on the above ground. The extension was also not published in the Gazette by the Rajpramukh or under his orders, but was published by the Govt. of Rajasthan who was never delegated these powers.
.(4) When Section 7 of the Ordinance was amended on 5th May, 1952, the whole of the Act, and not the amendment, should have been placed before the Legislature, as the extension of the life of the Ordinance was ‘ultra vires’ the powers of the Rajpramukh, and when the Ordinance had expired by lapse of time, the amendment was without any meaning and without any jurisdiction. The Ordinance together with the
amendment was, therefore, ‘ultra vires’, and the respondents Nos. 4 to 26 could not get protection under it.
.(5) The Ordinance was arbitrary and not based on reasonable classification, and there was no evidence that in the Bharatpur State the Ordinance should have been promulgated.
.(6) The Ordinance was ‘ultra vires’ also on this ground that it was not put before the Legislature within six weeks when the first Rajasthan Assembly came in Session.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
