SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Raj) 363

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
P.K.Banerjee, J.
Sewa Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
D.B.C.W.P. No. 30 of 1976.
Decided On : 9-05-1983

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:M.M. Tewari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M.I. Khan and Govt Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-retrospective nature of the amendment to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and its implications on the applicability of the amendment to transactions completed before its enactment.

Headnote:

Retrospective Amendment - Rajasthan Tenancy Act - The court considered the applicability of a retrospective amendment to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in a case involving the transfer of tenancy rights from a Scheduled Castes tenant to a non-Scheduled Castes tenant. The court relied on a Division Bench judgment to determine that the amendment was not retrospective, leading to the quashing of the order of the Member Board of Revenue.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a challenge against an order of the Member, Board of Revenue allowing reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the alleged transfer by a Scheduled Castes tenant to a non-Scheduled Castes tenant was made after the amendment of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which was held to be non-retrospective. As a result, the court quashed the order of the Member Board of Revenue.

Issues: The key issue was whether the alleged transfer was made before or after the amendment of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on a Division Bench judgment that established the non-retrospective nature of the amendment to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, leading to the conclusion that the amendment would not apply to transactions completed before it came into force.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Member Board of Revenue, making the rule absolute and ordering no costs.

JUDGMENT

1. - This rule is directed against an order of the Member, Board of Revenue allowing reference, under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

2. The only question which is to be considered whether the alleged transfer by Scheduled Castes tenant to a non Scheduled Castes tenant was before or after the amendment of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Admittedly, the amendment was made in 1964. It has been held in Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1964 Rule L. W. at page 512 that the amendment is not retrospective. It cannot be argued that if the amendment is not retrospective the amendment will apply in respect of transaction completed before the amendment came into force.

3. It that view of the matter the order of the Member Board of Revenue, cannot be sustained and I, therefor quash the order and make the rule absolute. There will be no order as to costs.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top