The principles of natural justice require that the transferees be given an opportunity of being heard before their lands are declared surplus and taken possession of by the State Government.

Headnote:
CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS - TRANSFER OF LAND - RECOGNITION - OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - REMEDY BY WAY OF SUIT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, agriculturists domiciled in Rajasthan, purchased agricultural lands from respondent No. 4. The lands were mutated in their names and they became 'khatedar' tenants. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 4 and he surrendered the lands including the petitioners' lands to the State Government. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Appellate Authority, contending that they were not afforded any opportunity of being heard and their transfers were not recognized.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer is required to act quasi-judicially while enforcing and functioning under the ceiling law. Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of land) Government Rules, 1963 empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to hold such further inquiry, if any, as he may deem fit to make. This provision keeps open the possibility of the Sub-Divisional Officer holding an inquiry in the presence of the transferees. The principles of natural justice require that the transferees be given an opportunity of being heard before their lands are declared surplus and taken possession of by the State Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the transferees are required to be given an opportunity of being heard in ceiling proceedings if the transfers are shown to have been made within the specified time in favor of permissible persons within permissible limit? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice are excluded by necessary implication under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Rules? 3. Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the transferees are required to be given an opportunity of being heard in ceiling proceedings if the transfers are shown to have been made within the specified time in favor of permissible persons within permissible limit. The Court relied on the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of land) Government Rules, 1963, which empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to hold such further inquiry, if any, as he may deem fit to make. The Court also relied on the principles of natural justice, which require that no person can be deprived of his property without being heard. 2. The Court held that the principles of natural justice are not excluded by necessary implication under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Rules. The Court noted that the Act and the Rules are silent with regard to the issue of notice to the transferees and to determine the reconcilability of the transfers in the presence of the transferees. However, the Court held that the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be interpreted to exclude the principles of natural justice. 3. The Court held that the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of suit. The Court noted that the petitioners can seek a declaration of their 'khatedari' rights under Section 88 and may further claim relief of possession or injunction, as the case may be, under Section 183 or Section 92 A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

JUDGMENT

1. - These 26 are writ, petitions where in orders passed by he Sub-Divisional Officer, Sojat, (respondent No. 3) dated 18.9.75 and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur (respondent No. 5). dated 26.3.76 in ceiling proceedings in relation to the lands held and transferred by respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioners, have been sought to be quashed.

2. The petitioners have averred in their writ petitions that they are agriculturists domiciled in Rajasthan within the definition of the term as given in explanation to Section 30DD of Chapter III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") They are permanently residing In Rajasthan since birth and earn their livelihood wholly from agriculture and cultivate their lands by their own labour and the labour of the members of their family They being landless cultivators as defined in the Act purchased Agricultural lands described in para 2 of the writ petitions not exceeding 30 acres from respondent No. 4. Except in four writ petitions, in all the other writ petitions, the lands are said to have been purchased on 28.3.61. In writ petitions Nos. 1462/76, 1572/76, 1590/76 and 1600/76. the dates of purchase are said to be 18 6 61, 26 6 66, St. 2023 and St. 2023 respectively. If was alleged that after the purchase of the land, possession was handed over by respondent No. 4 to the petitioners and the lands were duly mutated in their names and their names were entered and recorded in the records of rights as well, in place of respondent No. 4 and thus the petitioners became 'khatedar' tenants of the land. It was also averred by the petitioners that they are In possession of less than thirty standard acres within the ceiling limit. The petitioners in their writ petitions gave the history of the mitigation's wherein vires of the provisions of Chapter III B were challenged and stated that on coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Ordinance, 1973, replaced by the Raj. Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, the writ petitions were dismissed by a common short order on submissions of the counsel that they had become in fructuous. It is common ground between the panics in view of the settled portion of law that the old cases would be governed by the old law and as such it is not necessary to go into various grounds on the basis of which the impugned orders were sought to be challenged The petitioners have alleged that respondent Mo. 3 initiated ceiling proceeding against respondent No. 4 in respect of lands held by hi n including the petitioners' lands The respondent No. 4-mentioned in his declaration form etc. that, he had sold the lands described In para two of the writ petitions to the present petitioners and they are in possession of the same as 'Khatedar' tenants. Their lands should not be included in his lands and those lands are entered in their names in the record of rights. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, So jot, respondent No. 3, by his order dated 18 9 75 did not recognise the transfers on the ground that respondent No. 4 led no evidence and failed to prove the transfers The respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, bat his appeal was dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the learned Revenue Appellate Authority did not allow the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, for production of additional evidence. The respondent No. 4 made a prayer to produce and prove mutations, sale-deeds etc., but the respondent No. 4 was not allowed to adduce any additional evidence. The respondent No. 4 thereafter did not avail of any further remedy against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and he opted the surrender of the lands including the petitioners lands sold by him to the petitioners. The only ground of attack made on behalf of the petitioner in these writ petition before me is that the petitioners were not affor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1979 Supreme(Raj) 262

The principles of natural justice require that the transferees be given an opportunity of being heard before their lands are declared surplus and taken possession of by the State Government.

Cases Referred (6)

Judicial Analysis