Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Teena Real Estate Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Government of Rajasthan and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 773 of 2023
Decided On : 25-05-2023
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized for your understanding:
The petitioner, a registered company, purchased agricultural land from a non-SC/ST individual and developed it, subsequently seeking registration for a plot sold to a buyer. The initial denial was based on restrictions related to SC category land under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the land in question was originally from a general category seller, and the transaction was between two general category entities, with the company acting as a facilitator. The fact that the company's director belongs to SC category does not automatically impose restrictions on transactions involving land from non-SC/ST sources (!) (!) (!) .
The relevant circular issued by the State clarifies that companies or organizations formed by SC/ST persons can engage in transactions with general category individuals concerning khatedari land, but cannot transact with land belonging to SC/ST persons. This circular supports the view that the company's role is permissible when dealing with land originating from non-SC/ST sources (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, particularly Sections 42 and 42-B, are designed to protect SC/ST landowners but do not prohibit transactions where the land was originally from the general category. The restrictions do not extend to transactions where the land’s origin is from non-SC/ST sources, even if the company’s director is from SC category (!) (!) .
The court found that the earlier order denying registration was flawed because it misinterpreted the scope of the restrictions, which are meant to prevent transactions involving SC/ST landowners from the SC/ST community, not general category landowners. Therefore, the transaction was deemed valid (!) (!) .
The court directed the registration of the land in the name of the buyer, overriding the previous order, and clarified that the restrictions under Sections 42 and 42-B do not apply to this case since the land originated from a non-SC/ST source (!) .
Overall, the ruling affirms that a company with SC/ST office bearers can engage in land transactions with general category individuals, provided the land was not originally owned by SC/ST persons, and that the transaction aligns with the legislative intent and relevant circulars (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land registration issues concerning sc category (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. purchase validity from non-sc seller (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. opposition to transaction validity (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's interpretation of tenancy law (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. order to register land in compliance with law (Para 11) |
ORDER :
(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)
The petitioner is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956 on 25.10.2004. The petitioner-Company purchased an agricultural land situated in village- Gorella, Patwar Khetra- Sisarama, Bhoo Abhilekh Nirakshak Khetra Nai Tehsil- Girwa, District Udaipur (bearing Aarji No. 49 (New) and 24 (Old), Khasra No. 924/724, 926/725, 927/735, 736 total Kita four, ad measuring 0.4100 hectare) vide registered sale deed on 01.3.2005 while making payment of Rs. 5,50,000/-.
2. The petitioner-Company developed the land in question and sold plot No. 18 to one Mayakumari Acharya vide sale letter dated 06.12.2022.
3. The petitioner filed an application before District Collector, Stamp/Addl. Inspector General Registrar, Udaipur (Rajasthan) and requested for registration of plot No. 18 ad measuring about 565 Sq. Feet. The registration was denied on count of annexure/5, vide impugned order dated 04.1.2023, but the registration of the plot was not permitted because it was assumed to be a violation of Sections 42 (b), 46(a) & 49(a) of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955, on count of the khatedar being a person belonging to SC Category.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that though the Director of the company belongs to SC category but the land has been purchased from the non restricted category/non SC/ST category person. The District Registrar, Udaipur vide on 04.1.2023 in appeal No. 05/2022 has rejected the prayer of registration.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards annexure/2 which shows that the land in question has been purchased from one Nand Kumar who had got the land from Narayan Gurjar as reflected in the documents. Thus, the outcome of the factual matrix is that the land belonging to general category is being transferred to another general category with the petitioner company being a mediator.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure/5 dated 3.12.2021 which is a circular of the State which clarifies that even if a Company is formed by the person belonging to SC/ST Category, such company shall be entitled to enter in any agreement/transaction with person belonging to the general category, in relation to his khatedari land but cannot be in transaction with land belonging SC/ST person. The relevant portion of the circular dated 03.12.2021 is reproduced as under: -
^^jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e &1955 ds mDr izko/kkuksa dk ewy m)s'; vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDr;ksa ds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh j{kk djuk gSA fdlh vuqwlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDr;ksa }kjk xfBr dksbZ laLFkk] VªLV] dEiuh vkfn Hkh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDr;ksa dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs gSA vr% ,slh laLFkkvksa] VªLV] dEifu;ksa vkfn }kjk Hkh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDr ls mldh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe ds lac/k esa vUrj.k] fofue; bR;kfn ugha djk;k tk ldrkA lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gSA^^
7. Learned counsel for the respondents however, opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but is unable to refute that the land in question has emanated from the person of general caste and not from SC/ST category person and thus valid transaction is in existence.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the Director of the Company is a person belonging to SC, therefore, the provisions of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 Section 42 -B will operate.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that Section 42 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT is meant to protect the land belonging to SC/ST category of citizens but at the same time the same cannot be expanded to the extent that the person belonging to
A sale of land belonging to Scheduled Caste in violation of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is void, and khatedari rights cannot be claimed through adverse possession.
A person being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of State of Punjab cannot claim benefit of a Scheduled Caste in State of Rajasthan for the....
A sale of land belonging to Scheduled Caste members in violation of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act does not confer khatedari rights through adverse possession.
Registration of a sale-deed cannot be denied if it is duly executed and meets legal requirements, regardless of the nature of the land.
Point of Law : Proceedings initiated under Section 175 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were justified and learned Board of Revenue, after duly taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case....
Adverse possession cannot be claimed by a General Caste individual over land owned by a Scheduled Tribe individual, as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
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
