[2010(3) RLW 2636 (HC)]
Rajasthan High Court
HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, J. HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Uka & Ors.
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.158, 236, 257 & 258 of 2004
Decided on: 10.05.2010
As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas - Dissented view taken - Held - The provision ultra vires. (Para 68)
Reference answered accordingly.
Hon'ble MATHUR, J.- These appeals are before us being referred by a Division Bench of this Court for reconsideration of the judgment given in Asuram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore, reported in AIR 2000 Rajasthan 345.
2. To understand the issue under consideration, it may be useful to notice certain relevant statutes and the facts associated.
The Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955
3. On 30.3.1949, the State of Rajasthan was formed on integration of several independent Princely States and Chief-ships with varying levels of political, economic and social developments. At the time of formation of State, the Jagirdari system was prevailing over a huge part of available agricultural land and the tenants were not having any security of tenure and fairness of rent. The agriculture being a key factor of economic and national reconstruction, the newly formed State felt it necessary to introduce and accelerate the process of land reforms, thus, on 10.10.1955 a bill to enact the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was placed before the floor of the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly with following statements of objects and reasons:-
"Since the integration of various Sates into Rajasthan, the need for uniform Tenancy law for the whole state is being keenly felt. Very few of the integrating units had enacted tenancy laws and the diversity of conditions prevailing in different parts of Rajasthan in respect of land tenures and relations of tenants and land holders have been causing serious difficulties in administration. A bill was introduced in 1952 to remove these difficulties and to save the path of agricultural progress in the State. But as the Bill had several drafting drawbacks and public opinion received on the subject required several changes in the Bill the said was withdrawn. A new Bill has been drafted and is now introduced for consideration."
4. On 14th day of March, 1956, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") received assent of the President. As per preamble of the Act, it was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to tenancy of the agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms and matters connected therewith.
5. By the Act of 1955 several radical changes in the agrarian field, specially about relationship of land and tenant were introduced and those changes had their own socio economic effects, including that, every person, who was tenant of land otherwise than a sub-tenant or tenant of 'khudkasht' became khatedari tenant with heritable and transferable rights. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act abolished all payments in the form of 'lag-bag' and other cesses, prohibited premium for grant of lease, prohibited force labour on the land, made surrender of land valid only if possession is accompanied by a written application, attested by a competent authority, fixed rent in cash to be charged from sub-tenant as not more than twice the cash rent payable by the tenant in chief, fixed 1/6th of gross produce as rent in kind and made ejectment possible only through the procedure established by the Act.
6. A unique feature of the Act of 1955 is to safeguard the interest of weaker sections of the society. Sections 42, 46-A and 49-A of this Act restrict transfer of land i.e. under tenancy of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Looking to the nature of controversy involved in this appeal, it would be worth to quote the provisions referred above.
"Section 42.- General restrictions on sale, gift and bequest - The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenants of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void, if –
(a) ... daleted -w.e.f. 11.11.1992.
(b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a number of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who in not a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
(bb) such sale, gift or bequest, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b), is by a member of Sahari
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.