Order

10/07/2024

1. Petitioner has filed this Civil Writ Petition (PIL) inter alia being preferred on the following legal grounds:-

a. The State created and/or recognized different class within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes based on place of holding of their agriculture land by exercising powers under Section 90A(8) of the Land Revenue Act and such action has no rational nexux clearly in violation of the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

b. Section 90A(8) of the Land Revenue Act is in violation of Section 2 of the Land Revenue Act and also contradicts with Section 42 of the Tenancy Act.

c. The State in acting under Section 90A(8) of the Land Revenue Act to regularize land/construction belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes purchased and/or held by other than Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

d. The State converts land use under Section 90A(8) of the Land Revenue Act belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes on application by others not belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

e. The State does not have powers under Section 90A(8) of the Land Revenue Act to change/perfect the title of the landholding of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes based on unregistered documents in favour of others not belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

f. The State has a duty, responsibility and legal obligation to pay appropriate compensation/award to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 against their landholdings, converted exercising powers under Section 90A(8) of the Land Revenue Act.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Section 2 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’) put an embargo with regard to the application of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’). It is also contended that Section 42 of the Act of 1955 protects the property owned by Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) persons and Section 90-A(8) of the Act of 1956 overrides Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and is thus against the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It is also contended that the land belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is being transferred contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and in this, Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘JDA’) is playing a vital role. It is contended that the ‘khatedars’ who are members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are not being afforded an opportunity of hearing before allotment of the property to persons who are not members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It is also contended that the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are not been given fair compensation against the land holdings being converted, exercising powers under Section 90A(8) of the Act of

1956 is ultra vires the Constitution.

3. Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG appearing for the State and Mr. Amit Kuri, Adv., appearing for the JDA have vehemently opposed the writ petition. It is contended that Section 90A(8) of the Act of 1956 is not violating the rights of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes persons and cannot be said to be in violation of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. It is further contended that Section 90A(8) of the Act of 1956 begins with a non obstante clause and therefore, the provisions of Section 90A(8) of the Act of 1956 would apply. It is contended that Section 90A(8) of the Act of 1956 has been incorporated as: agricultural land which fall within the urban area or within the urbanisable limits or peripheral belt of an urban area, was being used for non-agricultural purposes or the possession has been parted with by way of sale or agreement to sell or by way of power of attorney or Will for purported non- agricultural use. In such cases, the provision under Section 90A(8) of the Act of 1956 p