Honble KAURANI, C.—Single Bench of this Board who heard Appeal /LR/71/2002/Hanumangarh arising out of the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh dated 19.6.2002 has referred the following question for the opinion of the Larger Bench of the Board:

"(1) What is the effect of Govt. Notification of dated 22.4.1991 (F4(27) Govt. Colonisation/84 on applicability of Sec. 13 & 13 A of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954?

(2) Whether the decision of Division Bench of this Court Gurnel Singh vs. State, RBJ (ii) 2004 page 477 lays down the correct law? Whether permission of Distt. Collector is not required for transfer of Lands after State Government notification referred to above and lands transferred before dated 22.4.1991 compoundable or not. State Govt. extended time in this connection more than once".

2. The State Government through Tehsildar (Revenue) Hanumangarh initiated the proceedings u/Ss. 13 and 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (in short the Act of 1954) against Akko widow of Vishnaram and Isra Ram son of Bhagu Ram before Addl. Collector, Hanumangarh with regard to sale of Agriculture land, Chak No. 5 M.O.D., Stone No. 79/274, Kila Nos. 15, 16, 17, 24 and 25 total 5 bighas land, without obtaining sanction from Collector. The Addl. Collector found that no action is required to be taken with regard to Kila No. 15 and for remaining 4 bighas land held that sale was by Harijan Akko who is Scheduled caste person, to a non-scheduled caste person and ordered to resume 4 bighas of the land by his order dated 31.3.2001. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed before R.A.A., Hanumangarh and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh vide his judgment dated 19.6.2002 rejected the appeal. Sulakhan Singh son of Isar Singh aggrieved with the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority filed the second appeal before the Board, which was registered as Appeal/LR/71/2002/Hanumangarh.

3. The Single Member of the Board who heard the appeal felt that the important question of law referred in para No. 2 of this judgment are involved in the case for which the opinion of the larger bench is necessary to decide the appeal, consequently, he has framed above two questions referred to in the para No. 1 and requested Honble Chairman of the Board of Revenue to make reference to the Larger Bench to give opinion on these questions. Honble Chairman has constituted this Larger Bench to give opinion on these two questions. Hence, this reference came up for hearing and decision before us.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Brahamanand Sharma has contended that this reference is an incompetent reference because on the question of interpretation of Secs. 13 and 13-A of the Act of 1954 and with regard to the effect of government notification dated 22.4.1991, on these sections the Division Bench of this Court has in Gurnel Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, RBJ (ii) 2004 page 477 has already held that by issuing the notification dated 22.4.1991 Sec. 13(1) of the Act of 1954 has been deleted and since Sec. 13(1) of the Act of 1954 has been deleted, Sec. 13-A of the Act of 1954 will deem to have not been in existing in the statute from the beginning. He has further argued that Honble Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 73/2003, State of Rajasthan vs. Pritam Singh, by judgment dated 29.3.2005 has also decided the effect of notification dated 24.1.1991 vis-a-vis Sec. 13(1) of the Act of 1954 and has held that the land could not have been resumed u/S. 13(1) of the Act of 1954. In view of the above submissions Shri Brahamanand Sharma has urged that since legal position on above two questions in this reference made by learned Single Member is well settled, therefore, reference made by Single Member is not valid reference and is a incompetent reference.

5. Shri L.K. Pandya, advocate, addressing the 22.4.1991 the applicability of Sec. 13(1) of the Act of 1954 has been withdrawn and not deleted, therefore, for future sale made after issuing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document