M.C. JAIN, J.—This writ petition raises a controversy as to whether a person can be compelled to surrender the surplus land out of the land retained by him instead of surrendering the land transferred by him, which is not recognizable in law.

2. I may recount a few material facts of the present case giving rise to the controversy that has arisen.

3. The petitioner purchased 5 Bighas of land; 4 Bighas being Killas Nos. 22 to 25 in Chak 8 GGR and 1 Bigha being Killa No. 21 in Chak No. 6 GGR from respondent No. 3 Balbirsingh by a registered sale-deed dated April 18, 1972 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against the respondent No. 3 Balbirsingh in case No. 783 of 1975. Shri Balbirsingh, respondent No 3 filed his objection to the draft statement, served on him and in his objection, inter alia, he stated that he had sold the aforesaid land to the petitioner bona fide and with full consideration. The respondent No. 3 mentioned that he had built a pucca house and also got constructed a tube-well and in order to meet that expenditure he sold the land to the petitioner. The Authorised Officer, Hanumangarh, by his order dated May 27, 1976, decided the ceiling case of respondent No. 3, whereby, 75 Bighas 6 Biswas land of the respondent No. 3 was declared to be surplus land and liable to be acquired under the provisions of the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short the Act). No notice of ceiling proceedings was served on the petitioner and the petitioner had no knowledge of these proceedings. The respondent No. 3 gave his option for surrender of the surplus land on July 10, 1976 and in that option, the respondent No 3 Shri Balbirsingh included the petitioners land sold to him. Regarding this option as well the petitioner had no knowledge. On the option, given by the respondent No. 4 Tehsildar, Tibi reported that 5 Bighas of land is encumbered with the petitioner vide Ex. 4. The Tehsildar, Tibi reported that possession over 69 Bighas 5 Biswas of land has been taken over and 5 Bighas of land, which is with the petitioner is not free from encumbrance. He sought an order from the Authorised Officer by his letter No. 2562. Prior to this, he informed that the land in dispute i. e. 5 Bighas of land was sold by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner Banwarilal in the year 1972 and the same had been mutated in his name in the Revenue Records and a tube-well exists therein. That land has been mortgaged by Shri Banwarilal with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and that mortgage was also shown in the Revenue Records. The Tehsildar by his report (Ex. 5) dated July 16, 1976 sought a direction whether possession over 5 Bighas of land is to be taken out of the land in possession of respondent No. 3 or not. When the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 3 has given option for surrender of the land of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application to the Authorised Officer, Hanumangarh under section 6/18 of the Act on November 20, 1978 (Ex. 6). Notice of the application was given to the respondent Shri Balbirsingh and he filed a reply to the notice (Ex 7). The Authorised Officer, by his order dated August 21, 1979 rejected the petitioners application. The petitioner has now sought the reliefs that the order Ex. 8 may be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from taking possession of the land in dispute from the petitioner. The challenge is, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent No. 3 had been given an option to select the land, which he wants to surrender, but he can not surrender encumbered land, if he has other land in his possession, which is available for being surrendered. Such an obligation of the transferor arises under Sec. 18 and sub-section (4) of Sec. 16 of the Act. It is only when the un-encumbered land is not available, then the encumbered land can be surrendered and the transferee in that situation is only entitled to the amount of compens

Click Here to Read the rest of this document