Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 958
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Kamruddin Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE ALOK SHARMA, J.
Kamruddin
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.8440-8455 of 2008, decided on 13.09.2012
Z.A. Naqvi Senior Counsel with Mazahar Alam, for Petitioner;
Jinesh Jain, Addl. Government Counsel, for Respondent
Headnote:Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Sec. 90-A, 90B(2), (5) and (7) — Notice u/Sec. 90-A issued by Tehsildar — Land in respect of which notice issued u/Sec. 90-A fell outside the jurisdiction of Tehsildar but within the jurisdiction of Nagar Parishad — File forwarded to Sub-Divisional Officer (Authorised Officer), Nagar Parishad for proceedings u/Sec. 90-B — Notice not served by S.D.O. but proceeded on the file — Held — Proceedings u/Sec. 90-B had to be initiated afresh — S.D.O. to comply with provisions of Sec. 90-B(2) and issue notice to the petitioner — Petitioner not given any opportunity of being heard as mandated u/Sec. 90-B(5) — Order passed by S.D.O. and Divisional Commissioner are quashed. (Paras 7 to 10)
Petition allowed.
jktLFkku Hkw-jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 90-d] 90¼[k½¼2½¼5½ ,oa ¼7½ & rglhynkj }kjk /kkjk 90-d ds rgr uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k & ftl Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa /kkjk 90-d ds rgr uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k og rglhynkj dh vf/kdkfjrk ls ckgj Fkk ysfdu uxj ifj"kn dh vf/kdkfjrk ds vUrxZr Fkk & /kkjk 90-[k ds rgr dk;Zokgh gsrq i=koyh mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh½ dks vxzsf"kr dh xbZ & mi[k.M vf/kdkjh }kjk uksfVl dh rkehy ugha djkbZ xbZ ysfdu i=koyh esa dk;Zokgh dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & /kkjk 90-[k ds rgr dk;Zokgh u;s fljs ls vkjEHk djuh Fkh & mi[k.M vf/kdkjh /kkjk 90-[k ¼2½ ds izko/kkuksa dh vuqikyuk djsa rFkk izkFkhZ dks uksfVl tkjh djsa & /kkjk 90-[k¼5½ esa tSlh vkKk nh xbZ gS ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj iznku ugha fd;k x;k & mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ,oa laHkkxh; vk;qDr }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vikLr fd;sA
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 7 ls 10½
2. The facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8440/2008 are being taken into consideration for the determination of the dispute/legal issues which arise in the writ petitions.
3. It is an admitted fact that the order dated 27th March, 2008 was passed by the SDO (Authorized Officer) Nagar Parishad, Tonk, either without issuing of any notice to the petittioner or without him giving an opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, notice had in the first instance been issued by the Tehsildar to the petitioner under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956. On or about 25th March, 2008, it however, transpired that the land in respect of which notice had been issued to the petitioner under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 fell outside the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar but within the jurisdiction of Nagar parishad Tonk, consequent to which the Tehsildar finding himself lacking in jurisdiction, forwarded the file to jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Officer, (Authorized Officer), Nagar Parishad, Tonk for proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956.
4. Sub-section (2) of 90-B provides that where any land is liable to be resumed under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 90-B, the Collector or the Officer authorized by the State government in his behalf shall serve a notice upon the person concerned calling upon such person to show cause as to why the said land may not be resumed summarily. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Authorized Officer) Nagar Parishad, Tonk however admittedly did not issue any notice but proceeded on the file as received from the Tehsildar, on proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 against the petitioner. The file was received from the Tehsildar on 26th March, 2008. The matter was decided the following day itself i.e. on 27th March, 2008 without issuing notice to the petitioner or in terms of Sub-section (2) Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 or hearing the petitioner as warranted under sub-sec. (5) of the Section 90-B.
4. Aggrieved of the order dated 27th March, 2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Authorized Officer) Nagar Parishad, Tonk, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 90-B(7) of the Act of 1956 to the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. The Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, held that notice had been issued to the petitioner by the Tehsildar and the petitioners having filed reply, there was no occasion for the Sub-Divisional Officer (Authorized Officer), Nagar Parishad, Tonk to issue notice afresh under Section 90-B(2) to the petitioner or hear the petitioner inasmuch as that the Sub-Divisional Officer was able to evaluate the worth of the petitioners defence from the reply to the notice issued under section 90-A by the Tehsildar.
5. I have heard Mr. Z.A. Naqvi Senior Counsel with Mr. Majahar Alam appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jinesh Jain Addl. Government Counsel for the respondent.
6. In view of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 90-B and Sub-section (5) of Section 90-B, Mr. Jinesh Jain Addl. Government Counsel has very fairly admitted to the fact that proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 can be initiated only by the Collector or the officer authorized by the State Government for the purpose. He submits that quite obviously the Tehsildar was not an officer authorized under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 and as such proceedings before Tehsildar in respect of land falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagar Parishad, Tonk were without jurisdiction. For the purpose, the Tehsildar had rightly forwarded the file for consideration to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Authorised Officer), Nagar P
