1991 Supreme(Raj) 805

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, M.R.Calla, JJ.
Mohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue and others - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2189 of 1990.
Decided On : 13-08-1991

Grove land, as defined under the Tenancy Act, continues to vest in the jagirdar or muafidar, despite the resumption of the jagir or muafi under the Act.

Headnote:

TENANCY ACT - RESUMPTION OF MUAFI LAND - GROVE LAND - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 22, 23 OF THE RAJASTHAN LAND REFORMS AND RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS ACT, 1952 - CONSEQUENCES OF RESUMPTION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN GROVE LAND AND OTHER LANDS - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 23(2) TO INTERSE DISPUTES - DEFINITION OF GROVE LAND - RELEVANCE OF CULTIVATION ON GROVE LAND - STATUS OF JELLY UNDER THE TENANCY ACT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTIONS 15, 19, 45, 46 OF THE TENANCY ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a sub-tenant of muafi land, challenged the judgment of the Board of Revenue, which upheld the decree of the trial court in a revenue suit filed by the deity, the owner of the muafi land. The petitioner claimed that the muafi was resumed in 1959, and as a result, the deity ceased to have any right or interest in the land, which vested in the State. The deity, on the other hand, contended that the land was grove land, which was protected under Section 23(1)(iv) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (the Act), and therefore, the consequences of resumption under Section 22 of the Act did not apply.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the land in dispute was grove land, as defined under Section 5(15) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (the Tenancy Act), and therefore, it continued to vest in the deity despite the resumption of muafi under the Act. The court further held that the petitioner, being a sub-tenant, could not acquire khatedari rights under the Tenancy Act, as the deity was a perpetual minor and the restrictions on sub-letting under Section 46 of the Tenancy Act did not apply to minors.

Issues: 1. Whether the land in dispute was grove land and therefore protected under Section 23(1)(iv) of the Act, despite the resumption of muafi under Section 22 of the Act? 2. Whether the petitioner, being a sub-tenant, could acquire khatedari rights under the Tenancy Act, despite the deity being a perpetual minor?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 23(1)(iv) of the Act to mean that grove land and fruit trees belonging to a jagirdar or muafidar shall continue to vest in them, notwithstanding the resumption of the jagir or muafi under Section 22 of the Act. 2. The court held that the petitioner, being a sub-tenant, could not acquire khatedari rights under the Tenancy Act, as the deity was a perpetual minor and the restrictions on sub-letting under Section 46 of the Tenancy Act did not apply to minors.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the land in dispute was grove land and therefore protected under Section 23(1)(iv) of the Act, and that the petitioner, being a sub-tenant, could not acquire khatedari rights under the Tenancy Act.