1998 Supreme(Raj) 1187
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Mohd.Yamin, J.
Beekar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue and others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. No. 702 of 1989.
Decided On : 17-08-1998
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:H.S.S. Kharlia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Vijay Kumar, C.L. Jain, Advocate.
Transfer of land by a Scheduled Caste person to a non-Scheduled Caste person is void ab initio under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT - SECTION 183-B - SECTION 42 - Transfer of land by a Scheduled Caste person to non-Scheduled Caste was against the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 183-B of the Tenancy Act does not negativate the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Fact of the Case:
Hari Ram, a non-claimant allottee of lands under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, transferred his rights in the lands to Ghasi Ram by a registered sale deed in 1968. Ghasi Ram sold the lands to Beekar Singh, a member of the Scheduled Caste, who held the land as Benami for Najar Singh Jat Sikh. Hari Ram filed an application under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, claiming to be a Ger-khatedar tenant and seeking possession of the lands from Beekar Singh and Najar Singh. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Appellate Authority, and Board of Revenue all held that Hari Ram was a Ger-khatedar tenant and ordered his possession of the lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer of land by Hari Ram to Ghasi Ram and subsequently to Beekar Singh was in contravention of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which prohibits the transfer of land by a Scheduled Caste person to a non-Scheduled Caste person. The court also found that the possession of Beekar Singh and Najar Singh was as trespassers on the land.
Issues: 1. Whether Hari Ram was a Ger-khatedar tenant? 2. Whether the transfer of land by Hari Ram to Ghasi Ram and subsequently to Beekar Singh was valid? 3. Whether the possession of Beekar Singh and Najar Singh was as trespassers on the land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Hari Ram was not a Ger-khatedar tenant because he had transferred his rights in the lands before he was granted a Sanad. 2. The court held that the transfer of land by Hari Ram to Ghasi Ram and subsequently to Beekar Singh was void ab initio because it was in contravention of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 3. The court held that the possession of Beekar Singh and Najar Singh was as trespassers on the land because they had no valid title to the land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by Beekar Singh, challenging the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Appellate Authority, and Board of Revenue.
JUDGMENT
1. - Hari Ram respondent No. 4 was a non-claimant allottee of 15 bighas of lands in stone No. 65/140, Chak No. 15 KRW, killa Nos. 1 to 15 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). The allotment was made in his favour prior to 1968 and the possession was handed over to him but the actual Sanad was not issued in his favour till 10-3-70. He transferred his rights in the lands in favour of one Shri Ghasi Ram son of Shri Banna Ram by caste Meghwal, resident of Khat Sajwar vide registered sale deed dated 6-8-68. Shri Ghasi Ram entered into cultivatory possession of the said lands which were formerly Khatedari lands of Shri Hari Ram on the date of sale i.e. 6-8-68 and continued in cultivatory possession of the said lands till 26-3-69, the day on which he transferred the said lands in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale. The Irrigation Department entered his name and girdawari was made in his favour since then. Demand notices for irrigation charges were issued in his name. Water slips were issued in his name and he paid water charges vide receipts Annx. 3 to Annx. 8. The petitioner in the year 1978-79 gave the lands on one year's 'theka' to Najar Singh, respondent No. 5. Hari Ram filed an application on 14-6-1978 before the Collector, Ganganagar for putting him back in possession of the said lands on the ground that his lands had been trespassed by Shri Najar Singh. The Collector forwarded the application to the Tehsildar who issued notices to the petitioner and Najar Singh. In those proceedings the statements of the petitioner as well as Najar Singh and Hari Ram were recorded on 8-8-78. The Tehsildar submitted his report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh. The Sub Divisional Officer treated this application under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and issued notices to the petitioner, Najar Singh and Hari Ram. He himself recorded statement of Hari Ram on 3-9-80 and inspected site on 5-9-80. Statements of Jora Singh, Manphool Singh and the petitioner were recorded at the site. Then he passed an order under Section 183-B on 29-9-83 holding Hari Ram as Ger-khatedar tenant. As such the transfer made by him in favour of Ghasi Ram was held to be illegal. He passed an order that Hari Ram be put in possession of the lands. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide Annx. 10 dated 24-11-83. Then a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 24-11-1988 vide Annx. 11. He has challenged these orders in this writ petition on the grounds that an application under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act can be filed only by a person entitled to the possession of the land against the trespasser. The scope of Section 183 is limited to the cases where a person trespass the land of the scheduled caste persons. But if a scheduled caste person voluntarily hands over the possession to a third party of his land is not entitled to approach the statutory authorities under Section 183-B of this Act. It has also been challenged on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to register the application under Section 183-B. The orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue suffer from illegality because they also assumed that the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to proceed under Section 183-B. The conclusion of these Courts that Hari Ram was Ger-khatedar tenant is not correct because the admitted fact is that Hari Ram was an allottee of the lands in dispute under the provisions of the Act. Hari Ram Had acquired rights under the said Act and Sanad was issued in his favour on 10-3-70. The assumption of the Revenue Board that he could not be a Khatedar tenant before 10-3-70 is erroneous and contrary to law. Sanad is actually a formal document. The confirmation of rights do not depend on issue of Sanad. Actually Hari Ram was an allottee under t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document