Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S. Ravindra Bhat, Dinesh Mehta, JJ.
Teja Ram and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1103 of 2017
Decided On : 19-08-2019
LAND TRANSFER - VOID TRANSACTION - RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - SECTION 42(B) - SALE OF LAND BY SCHEDULED CASTE MEMBER TO NON-SCHEDULED CASTE PERSON - VALIDITY - MUNICIPAL BOARD AS PURCHASER - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 42(B) - EFFECT ON MUTATION ENTRY - PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 175 OF THE ACT - MAINTAINABILITY - RES JUDICATA - SUIT UNDER SECTION 88 OF THE ACT - RELEVANCE - DIRECTIONS TO STATE GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL BOARD.
Fact of the Case:
A Municipal Board purchased land from a Scheduled Caste member, Teja Ram, in 1988 for a housing colony. The Tehsildar initiated proceedings under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, alleging that the transaction was void under Section 42(b) of the Act. The Assistant Collector accepted the application and dropped the proceedings without adjudication. The Municipal Board applied for mutation of the land in its name, which was rejected by the Tehsildar. The Addl. Collector allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar to carry out the mutation. The District Collector sought the State Government's opinion, which opined that the mutation could be done in the Municipal Board's name. The land was mutated in the Municipal Board's name. Later, the State Government withdrew its earlier opinion and the Tehsildar recalled the mutation entry. The Municipal Board filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings under Section 175 and the cancellation of the mutation entry.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sale of land by a Scheduled Caste member to a non-Scheduled Caste person, including a Municipal Board, is void under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The communication issued by the State Government withdrawing its earlier clarification that the Municipal Board is a constitutional institution and not subject to Section 42(b) was valid. The proceedings under Section 175 of the Act initiated by the Tehsildar were maintainable despite the earlier proceedings being dismissed as withdrawn. The dismissal of a suit filed by one of the appellants challenging the transfer of the land on different grounds did not bar the present appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale of land by a Scheduled Caste member to a Municipal Board is void under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955? 2. Whether the communication issued by the State Government withdrawing its earlier clarification that the Municipal Board is a constitutional institution and not subject to Section 42(b) was valid? 3. Whether the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act initiated by the Tehsildar were maintainable despite the earlier proceedings being dismissed as withdrawn? 4. Whether the dismissal of a suit filed by one of the appellants challenging the transfer of the land on different grounds barred the present appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, clearly states that a sale, transfer, or bequeath by a member of Scheduled Caste to any person, including a company, corporation, or Board, is void. 2. The Full Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Uka & Ors. (2010) overruled the earlier Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003), which held that the provisions of Section 42(b) do not apply to transfers of land by a Scheduled Caste member to a juristic person. 3. The withdrawal of the earlier clarification by the State Government was in line with the correct position of law and did not suffer from any infirmity. 4. The dismissal of the suit filed by one of the appellants challenging the transfer of the land on different grounds did not bar the present appeal, as the issues and grounds raised in the suit were entirely different.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The impugned order quashing the communication issued by the State Government and the mutation entry in favor of the Municipal Board was set aside. The proceedings under Section 175 of the Act pending before the Assistant Collector were held to be alive and directed to be decided in accordance with law. The State Government was directed to consider allotting the land to the Municipal Board if the Assistant Collector ordered vesting the land in the State, considering the existence of school, Income Tax Department Building, and a Temple on the land. The Municipal Board was directed to compensate the appellants by allotting them four plots free of cost.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Mehta, J.
1. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 11.10.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge accepting the writ petition filed by the Municipal Board, Sirohi (respondent no. 6 herein).
2. The facts relating to the present appeal are that one Teja Ram- (the appellants' propositus), belonging to a Scheduled Caste community sold his 35 bighas and 4 biswas land to the Municipal Board, Sirohi by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1988. The land was purchased by the Municipal Board under the Integrated Development Scheme; out of which, about 11 bighas of land was got fragmented for the development of a housing colony by an order of the competent authority namely SDO, Sirohi.
3. Before the plots could be offered for allotment, the Tehsildar, Sirohi (respondent no. 5 herein) moved an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act or the Act of 1955), before the Assistant Collector, Sirohi seeking eviction of the Municipal Board, alleging that the transaction between the Municipal Board and Teja Ram was in violation of Section 42 (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. While impleading Teja Ram, it was inter alia, averred in the application that since the sale deed dated 27.3.1989 executed by Teja Ram, in favour of Municipal Board was void, not only was the land in question liable to be resumed by the State Government, but the purchaser-Municipal Board was also liable to be evicted.
4. However, a letter dated 4.10.1995 was filed by the Tehsildar, seeking withdrawal of the application under Section 175 of the Act, in furtherance of a communication dated 29.9.1995, sent by the District Collector, Sirohi. It was inter alia stated by the District Collector in the said communication that since the purchaser Municipal Board is an institution and not a person, the transaction in question was not hit by the provisions contained in Section 42(b) of the Tenancy Act. The Assistant Collector, accepted the application and dropped the proceedings by his order dated 9.10.1995, however, without any adjudication.
5. The Municipal Board, then, moved an application for mutation of the subject land in its name, which was rejected by the Tehsildar by his order dated 29.6.2005, observing that the transaction was in defiance of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. The Municipal Board, Sirohi preferred a mutation-appeal against the Tehsildar's order, was allowed by the Addl. Collector, Sirohi on 4.1.2006 and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar to carry out the mutation in view of the Circular dated 9.12.2005, issued by the State Government. The state had clarified that the Municipal Board is a caste-neutral entity and thus, the transaction does not fall foul to Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955.
6. The District Collector, Sirohi wrote a letter dated 15.12.2005 to the State Government and sought its opinion/guidance in this regard. The State Government in turn wrote a letter dated 20.12.2005 and opined that as the Municipality is a Constitutional body, the mutation can be done in its name. On 18.3.2006, the land was mutated in the name of Municipal Board. After some time, the District Collector, Sirohi received another communication dated 15.9.2006, whereby the earlier communication dated 20.12.2005 was withdrawn. Such being the position, the Tehsildar by order dated 29.12.2006, recalled his earlier order (18.03.2006) and mutation entry in the name of Municipal Board was deleted.
7. Simultaneously, the Tehsildar filed an application under Section 175 of the Tenancy Act, before the Assistant Collector and prayed that it be declared that the land had vested in the State while also seeking eviction of Municipal Board, Sirohi from such land. It was highlighted that the Municipal Board, Sirohi had purchased the land from the first respondent, a member of Scheduled Caste, hence, the sale was void being contrary to Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
