Back
1966 Supreme(Raj) 105
Board of Revenue
Chaturvedi, Chairman; R.N. Modhok, G.B.K. Hooja, Members
Ram Singh - Appellant
Versus
Parmoli - Respondents
Appeal No. 12/S. Madhopur of 1963
Decided On : April 18, 1966
S.N. Parikh, for Appellant; Chaturbhuj Sharma, for Respondent; B.K. Parikh, Govt. Advocate
Headnote:(a) Tenancy Act. Sec. 5(28)—Tenancy Government Rules, R. 7—Pasture land—Whether Collector can allot portions of pasture land for agricultural purpose — He can (Per Chaturvedi, Chairman and Hooja, Member)—He cannot (Per Madhok Member).(b) Land Revenue Act, Secs. 92 and 93—Collector cannot allot land for any other purpose from pasture land (Per Chaturvedi, Chairman and Hooja, Member)—Collector can allot land for any other purpose from pasture land (Per Madhok, Member).
Per Chaturvedi, Chairman and Hooja, Member—It is obvious that if the power of the Collector is restricted to the lands reserved as pasture lands under R. 6, it will lead to absurd conclusion and anomalies. The apparent purpose of the enactment of R. 7 is to impose restrictions on the transfer of land entered as pasture land in the village papers for any other purposes except with the express sanction of the Collector. To freeze, the lands falling into this pool from the first two sources as Charnots in perpetuity would obviously appear to be an absurd proposition, in the context of a dynamic rural economy. Such an inflexible rule would defeat the intendment of the Legislature. R. 7 therefore governs all the rules laid down in Chapter II relating to the demarcation of pasture land as defined in cl. 28 of sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, the rule of law laid down in the case of Nanuram vs. State of Rajasthan is not in conformity with the provisions of the aforesaid R. 7.
The Legislature has very jealously tried to guard the existence and development of Charnot lands and unless sufficient land has been reserved for this purpose, the Tehsildar may not proceed to invite applications for the allotment of land for agricultural purposes. It, therefore, follows that if a bite has to be made into the pasture land of a village, sufficiently strong reasons must exist to justify the same and no land should be excluded from the Charnot without due consideration and sufficient cause. At the same time, the land to be allotted for agricultural purposes should first be notified to all the claimants and their cases should be considered with due regard to their priorities. This would automatically bar the free exchange of Charnot land with agricultural land by the mere process of an application by an allottee who finds that the Charnot land is more suited for cultivation than the land already allotted to him.
Per Madhok, Member—Sec. 92 Land Revenue Act empowers the Collector to set apart land for any special purpose, such as, pasturage, forest reserves, abadi or for any other public or municipal purpose. This also means that the Collector may divert land vesting in Government from pasturage to forest reserves or abadi or any other public or municipal purpose. The right of free pasturage under sec. 93 subsists only as long as the land retains the character of pasturage and the villagers cannot claim that land once recorded as pasture land or earmark as such cannot be put to any other public purpose. The omnibus expression used in Sec. 92 any special purpose even include extension of agriculture at the cost of pasture land.
In this connection, reliance was placed on the rule laid down in Nanuram vs. State of Rajasthan (1961 RRD 51). This case relates to village Barada which has a plot No. 9 measuring 204 bighas. The village was settled in the Smt. year 2008 and the entire area of this plot was entered in the settlement record as Charnot Mehfooz. At that time the village was in the Jagir and it appears that the Jagir-ars raised no objection thereto. Subsequently, however, he issued Pattas in respect of a portion of this field, measuring 74 bighas, in the names of his minor sons and a few other persons. On the strength of the Pattas mutations in the revenue records were claimed. At first, the Tehsildar refused mutations on the ground that the land in dispute was Charnot Mehfooz and, therefore, no cultivatory rights could be granted therein. On appeal, the Collector remanded the case to the Tehsildar for fresh decision whereupon the Tehsildar allowed mutation. This was followed by another appeal by the aggrieved party which was accepted by the learned Collector who set aside the order of the Tehsildar holding that the land in dispute was Charnot Mehfooz and could not be released or allotted for cultivation. Subsequently, however, it appears the Gram Panchayat at the instance of the Patta holders applied to the Collector that the area measuring 74 bighas having been brought under cultivation, fresh area bringing the total upto 204 bighas may be reserved for the village Charnot. Thereupon, the learned Collector allowed 74 bighas from Khasra No. 9 to be excluded from the Charnot and in lieu thereof permitted the area of some other plots measuring 82 bighas to be included in the village Charnot. This order was attacked in appeal before the learned Commissioner who dismissed the same holding that the Collector was competent to sanction this arrangement. This was followed by a revision petition before the Board of Revenue.
The D.B. of the Board of Revenue which heard this case came to the conclusion that the learned Commissioner in upholding the order of the Collector in so far as it related to the exclusion of 74 bighas from the village Charagah had acted without jurisdiction. It was observed that the learned Commissioner appeared to have viewed the case as falling under Sec. 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.
In this connection, a reference was made to chap. II of the Government of Rajasthan Rules made under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The D B. quoted Rules 3 and 4(2) made by the Government of Rajasthan to give effect to the provisions of Clause 28 of Sec. 5 and held that the combined effect of both these Rules is that the disputed area of 74 bighas must continue to be shown as Gochar Bhumi and must be excluded from assessment. It was observed that those rules take away all jurisdiction from the Revenue Courts to exclude areas from recorded Charagah and to release them for cultivation i.e. to bring them under assessment.
The D.B. of this Board which heard the present case, however, did not feel persuaded to accept the above rule laid down by the previous D.B., in view of Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules which reads as follows:—
7. "The Land ear-marked in this manner shall be entered as pasture land or Charnot in the village papers and such land shall not be given to anyone for cultivation or for any other purpose w
