State of Raj. vs Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Raj) 397

[Citation : RLW 2010(2) RJ 1068 (HC)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
State of Raj. Vs. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (Bhalla, CJ.)
HON'BLE JAGDISH BHALLA, CJ.
HON'BLE DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
State of Raj. & Ors.
Versus
M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) Nos. 68 & 69 of 2010, decided on 06.04.2010

Advocates Appeared
Sandeep Bhandawat, for Appellants in SAW No. 68 of 2010;
M.R. Singhvi, for Appellant in SAW No. 69 of 2010;
M.S. Singhvi, for Respondent (Writ Petitioner)

Headnote:Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Sec. 82 — Competence of the Collector to make reference u/S. 82 in relation to the judgment passed by R.A.A. — S.D.O. declared the land to be abadi land — R.A.A. upheld the order — The order having not challenged further became final — Collector filed reference — Respondent filed writ petition challenging the notice issued by Collector u/S. 82 of the Act — Held — The Collector was not even competent to make reference u/S. 82 of the Act in relation to the order passed by RAA who was not an authority subordinate to him — Mutation entries are essentially a consequence of the order finally passed by RAA — When the finding remains final and conclusive that the land in question is abadi land, any proposition of dealing with the same under the Act could only be said to be fundamentally without jurisdiction. (Paras 15 to 19)
       The Collector was not even competent in made a reference u/Sec. 82 of the Act of 1956 in relation to a judgment passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who was not an authority subordinate to him. As aforesaid, the mutation entries are essentially a consequence of the order finally passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. (Para 18)
       Moreover, when the finding remains final and conclusive that the land in question is abadi land, any proposition of the dealing with the same under the Act of 1956 could only be said to be fundamentally without jurisdiction; and the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in quashing the same. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the other directions to the UIT to deal with the application for sub-division in accordance with law remain unexceptionable being rather of necessary consequence. (Para 19)
       jktLFkku Hkw-jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 82 & vkj,, }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds lEcU/k esa /kkjk 82 ds rgr jsQjsal djus gsrq dysDVj dh l{kerk & mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us Hkwfe dks vkcknh Hkwfe gksuk ?kksf"kr dh & vkj,, us vkns'k cgky j[kk & vkns'k dks vkxs pqukSrh ugha nsus ds dkj.k og vfUre gqvk & dysDVj us jsQjsal nk;j fd;k & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 82 ds rgr dysDVj }kjk tkjh uksfVl dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, izR;FkhZ us ;kfpdk nk;j dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vkj,, }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds lEcU/k esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 82 ds rgr jsQjsal djus gsrq Hkh dysDVj l{ke ugha Fkk D;ksafd vkj,, mldk v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh ugha Fkk & ukekUrjdj.k dh izfof"V;ka vko';d :i ls vkj,, }kjk vfUre :i ls ikfjr vkns'k dk gh ifj.kke gS & tc fu"d"kZ vfUre ,oa fu.kkZ;d jgrk gS fd iz'uxr tehu vkcknh Hkwfe gS rks vf/kfu;e ds rgr mls laO;ogkj djus okyh fdlh izfriknuk dks ekSfyd :i ls vf/kdkfjrk foghu gksuk gh dgk tk ldrk gSA ¼in la[;k 15 ls 19½

       vihysa [kkfjt dhA

Hon'ble BHALLA, CJ.—These two intra-Court appeals, preferred against the same order dated 3.3.2008 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 5444/2005, have been considered together; and are taken up disposal by this common judgment.

2. The writ petition aforesaid was filed by the respondent M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (the writ petitioner) questioning the show cause notices (Annexures 14 and 15) issued by the Collector, Udaipur in the proceedings for reference initiated under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (`the Act of 1956') in Reference Application Nos. 2/2005 and 3/2005; and seeking declaration that the application for sub-division of the land in question as made to the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (`UIT') was deemed to be granted or in the alternative, for direction to the UIT to decide the same forthwith. By the impugned order dated 3.3.2008, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition while holding that initiation of proceedings under Section 82of the Act of 1956 and issuance of notices by the District Collector, Udaipur had been wholly without jurisdiction; and has directed the UIT to proceed with and decide the writ petitioner's application for sub-division of the land in question.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that by way of the reference applications dated 17.6.2005, the Tehsildar, Girwa made the request to the Collector, Udaipur to make reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside certain mutation entries dated 8.1.2003, 18.7.2003, 17.8.2004 and 22.9.2004, particularly those relating to the land in question, comprised in Khasra Nos. 118 and 118 of village Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur admeasuring about 79.7100 hectares, essentially on the ground that such mutation entries in alteration of the revenue record had been effected without order from the competent authority.

4. The land in question together with other parcels of land, said to be in the ownership of late Maharana Bhagwat Singh of Mewar, was the subject matter of proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (`the Act of 1955') as the same was treated to be the agricultural land. In ceiling Case No. 1/1970, the competent authority, by the order dated 11.2.1972, ordered its acquisition as surplus land in the hands of the assessee late Maharana Bhagwat Singh; and the appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur on 14.3.1975. Pursuant to the order of the competent authority dated 11.2.1972 as upheld in appeal , the land in question came to be recorded in the revenue records as "Bilanam" on 13.3.1976. The revision petition preferred by the assessee bearing number 587/1976 was dealt with by the Board of Revenue at various ladders and stages. Leaving the details on the rounds of proceedings in the Board of Revenue aside, suffice is to notice for the present purpose that the said revision petition was dismissed by the Board but then, was remanded by this Court while allowing the writ petition preferred by the assessee on 25.11.1989; and, ultimately, the Board of Revenue allowed the said revision petition on 18.12.1995, and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for decision afresh.

5. After remand, on 30.6.1999, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa held the land in question to be the `abadi land', and, therefore, not covered by the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Act of 1955; and after excluding the land in question, directed acquisition of surplus from the agriculture land in the hands of the assessee late Maharana Bhagwat Singh. Aggrieved against the order dated 30.6.1999, the State and so also the legal representative of the assessee preferred separate appeals that were decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur by the common order dated 2.12.1999; while the appeal preferred by the legal representatives of the assessee (No. 102/1999) was partly allowed, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document