Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHP
PANCHA RAM AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE AND ORS – Respondent
CW 2469/2000
['JL PUROHIT', '', 'RAJEEV PUROHIT', 'NS ACHARYA', 'AK KHATRI', '', 'VN KALLA']
Members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot let or sublet their holdings to persons who are not members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, and such transfers or subleases are void and liable to summary eviction under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Headnote:
LAND TENANCY - SUBLETTING - SECTION 46A OF THE RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - SUMMARY EVICTION - SECTION 175 OF THE RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - APPLICABILITY - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were members of the Savarna Caste, were accused of subletting land allotted to the private respondent, a member of the Scheduled Caste, in violation of Section 46A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Assistant Collector, Bali, ordered the petitioners and the private respondent to be dispossessed from the disputed land and vested the entire 16 bigha 06 biswa of land in the State as Siwai Chak land. The Revenue Appellate Authority (Second), Jodhpur, and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer upheld the Assistant Collector's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petitioners' writ petition, holding that the petitioners had failed to prove their continuous possession over the land in question since Samwat Year 2010 and that their possession was on account of subletting by the private respondent, which violated Section 46A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Court also found that the petitioners had not been able to establish their joint khatedari over the disputed land and had not exhausted any legal remedies to rectify the alleged incorrect revenue entry in favor of the private respondent. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, was applicable in the present case and that the application under the said provision was not barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners violated Section 46A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, by subletting land allotted to the private respondent, a member of the Scheduled Caste?2. Whether Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is applicable in the present case?3. Whether the application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 46A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, prohibits members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from letting or subletting their holdings to persons who are not members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.2. Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, provides for the summary eviction of tenants who transfer or sublet their holdings in violation of the Act.3. The limitation period for filing an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is 30 years from the date when the factum of subletting came to the knowledge of the concerned authorities.
Final Decision: The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petitioners' writ petition, upholding the orders of the Assistant Collector, Bali, the Revenue Appellate Authority (Second), Jodhpur, and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2469/2000
Pancha Ram & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. J.L. Purohit, Senior Advocate (on
VC)
assisted by Mr. Shashank Ojha
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. L.K. Purohit
Mr. Shreyash Ramdev
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
04/01/2022
1.
This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
“(a) an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued
quashing the orders passed by the Assistant
Collector, Bali, the Revenue Appellate Authority (II),
Jodhpur and the Board of Revenue dated 14.12.88,
17.04.93 and 09.06.2000 (Annexures 3, 4 and 5
respectively);
(b) the respondents may be restrained from
interfering with the cultivatory possession of the
petitioners over the lands in dispute;
(c) in any case, the order passed by the Board of
Revenue for dispossessing the petitioners from 16.06
Bighas of the lands may be quashed.”
2.
The bone of contention in the present case is subletting of
half portion of a land (comprising Khasra No.59 in Village Dhalop,
(2 of 9)
[CW-2469/2000]
Tehsil Desuri, District Pali), allotted under the landless category to
the private respondent-Jeevla (member of the Scheduled Caste
category), which was in alleged violation of the provisions of
Section 46A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Act of 1955’); and the consequential orders passed
in regard to dispossession of the petitioners from the said half
portion of the land, while vesting the entire 16 bigha 06 biswa of
land in the State as Siwai Chak land.
3.
It is pertinent to note that though the private respondent-
Jeevla was also ordered to be dispossessed vide the impugned
judgments, but he has not challenged the same, until now.
4.
The genesis of the present dispute is traceable to an
application preferred by the Tehildar, Desuri, District Pali on
14.06.1983 before the Assistant Collector, Bali, under Section 175
of the Act of 1955.
In the said application, while alleging
violation of the provisions of Section 175 of the Act of 1955, it was
prayed that the non-applicants (present petitioners) as well as the
private respondent may be ordered to be dispossessed from the
portion of the disputed land, which was put to subletting by the
private respondent to the petitioners, and accordingly, the same
may be ordered to be vested in the State.
5.
On 27.08.1983, the non-applicants/petitioners filed reply to
the aforementioned application preferred by the Tehsildar, and
they, while denying all the averments made in the said application,
claimed, amongst others, their father’s prolonged and continuous
cultivatory possession over the land in question since Samwat
Year 2010.
(3 of 9)
[CW-2469/2000]
6.
Thereafter, during the proceedings of the application under
Section 175 of the Act of 1955, on the request of the petitioners,
the same was converted into a suit.
7.
After hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector, Bali, vide
the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.1988, decreed
the suit (application u/s.175 of the Act of 1955), while directing
that the present petitioners alongwith their father and the private
respondent herein be dispossessed from the entire land in
question. It was also directed that the Tehsildar, Desuri shall take
half portion of the said land under his control, while recording the
same as Siwai Chak land, until re-allotment of the said half portion
of the disputed land is made.
8.
Against the aforementioned judgment and decree dated
14.12.1988, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the
Revenue Appellate Authority (Second), Jodhpur.
8.1
The Revenue Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated
17.04.1993, while affirming the aforementioned judgment and
decree dated 14.12.1988, dismissed the appeal preferred by the
