SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, RANGANATH MISRA, M.H. KANIA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Bansidhar and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2037 - 2042 of 1977 with 2072 - 2974 (N) of 1977 etc. etc.
Decided on 29-3-1989.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A.K. Sen, Mr. V. M. Tarkunde and Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Mr. N.D.B. Raju, Mr. Ram Kalyan Sharma, Mr. Jagdish Nandware, Mr. K. B. Rohtagi, Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Mr. R.S. Sodhi and Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocates with them for Appellants; Mr. C. M. Lodha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Badri Dass Sharma, MR.S. S. Khanduja and Mr. Indra Makwana, Advocates with him for Respondents. 1615
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 39 (B) and (c) and 213 - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,1973 – Section 30B and 40 - Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1960 - Rajasthan General Clauses Act 1955 – Section 6 and 5(6A) - Special Leave pertaining to agrarian – Special leave petition - These appeals, by Special Leave and Petitions for grant of Special Leave pertaining to agrarian reform legislation in State of Rajasthan, arise out of and are directed against judgment dismissing a batch of special appeals and affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge of High Court rejecting appellants contentions against legality of certain proceedings for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings initiated and continued under the Provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - In the Writ-petition filed directly in this Court reliefs similar to those sought before the High Court are claimed - Principal controversy before High Court in the proceedings, shorn of its niceties and embellishments, was whether the proceedings for fixation of ceiling area with reference to the appointed of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, could be initiated and continued after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act - Chapter III-B, pertaining to imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings, in State of Rajasthan, was introduced into the 1955 Act by Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1960 – Held, On a careful consideration of matter, court are inclined to agree with view taken by the High Court on the point - Reliance placed by appellants learned counsel on the provisions as detracting from tenability of conclusion reached by High Court on the point is, in court opinion, somewhat tenuous - Contention of the learned counsel is that the expression "notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force" in Section 3 of 1973 Act would exclude the operation of Chapter Ill-B of the 1955 Act which, according to the contention, even if kept alive would yet be a law for the time being in force and, therefore, be excluded by virtue - High Court held that the expression "law for the time being in force" does not take within its sweep a law deemed to be in force and that, accordingly, opening words of Sec. 3 relied upon by the appellants learned counsel will not have an overriding effect so as to exclude the old law - Court agree with the High Court that right of the State to the excess land was not merely an inchoate right under Act, but a right "accrued" within the meaning of sec. 6 (c) of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, and liability of the land-owner to surrender the excess land was a liability "incurred" also within the meaning of the said provision - Appeals, Special Leave Petition, and Writ Petition, accordingly, fail and are dismissed - Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT
VENKATACHALIAH, J. :— These appeals, by Special Leave and Petitions for grant of Special Leave pertaining to agrarian reform legislation in the State of Rajasthan, arise out of and are directed against the judgment dated 21st October 1976, of a Full Bench of the High Court of Rajssthan (reported in AIR 1977 Raj 46), dismissing a batch of special appeals and affirming the judgment dated 2-12-1975, of the learned single Judge of the High Court rejecting appellants contentions against the legality of certain proceedings for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings initiated and continued under the Provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. In the Writ-petition filed directly in this Court reliefs similar to those sought before the High Court are claimed.
The principal controversy before High Court in the proceedings, shorn of its niceties and embellishments, was whether the proceedings for fixation of ceiling area with reference to the appointed date i.e. 1-4-1966 under Chapter, III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (1955 Act for short) could be initiated and continued after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act (Act No. 11 of 1973) (1973 Act for short) which w.e.f. 1-1-1973 repealed Section 5(6A) and Chapter III-B of the old Act, i.e. 1955 Act.
2. Chapter III-B, pertaining to imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings, in the State of Rajasthan, was introduced into the 1955 Act by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1960. As a sequential necessity Section 5 was amended by the introduction in it of Clause (6A) which defined "ceiling area". The notified-date, as originally fixed, was 1-4-1965; but owing to the uncertainties imparted to the implementation of the law by the challenge made to the provisions of Chapter III-B before the High Court and the interim-order of the High Court staying the operation of the law, Government had had to re-notify 1-4-1966 as the fresh notified-date, after the challenge to the validity of Chapter III-B had been repelled by the High Court.
By the time, the 1973 Act was brought into force disputes touching the determination of the ceiling areas in 33,471 cases had come to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III-B of the earlier 1955 Act After the 1973 Act came into force on 1-1-1973, some 8,494 cases for the determination of ceiling-areas under III-B of the 1955 Act came to be initiated and were sought to be continued under said Chapter III-B of the repealed 1955 Act on the view that the repeal of Chapter III-B of the 1955 Act by the 1973 Act did not affect the rights accrued and liabilities incurrd under the old law. Appellants principal contention is that after the coming into force of the 1973 Act which, by its 40th Section, repealed Chapter III-B of the 1955 Act, recourse could not be had to the repealed-law for purposes of commencement, conduct and conclusion of any proceedings for fixation of ceiling as prescribed under the old law. This contention has been repelled by the Full Bench of the High Court in the judgment under appeal. The correctness of view of the Full Bench arises for consideration in these appeals.
3. The factual antecedents in which the controversy arose before the High Court may be illustrated by the facts of one of the appeals. In CA 1003 [ N ] of 1977, the appellants claim to have entered into possession and cultivation of certain parcels of land pursuant to alleged agreements to sell dated 28-4-1957 said to have been executed in their favour by the then land-holder, a certain Sri Hari Singh. The sale deeds were passed only on 22-8-1966, after the notified-date. Proceedings for the fixation of ceiling area in the hands of Sri Hari Singh were commenced under the Repealed Chapter III-B of the 1955 Act. Appellants purchases were held to be hit by Section 30 DD of the said Chapter III-B, which prescribed certain residential qualifications, which appellants did no
Relied on : State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh
Chief Inspector of Mines v. K. C. Thapar
I. T. Commissioner v. Shah Sadiq and SOBS
Laiji Raja and Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram
Raghunath Laxman Wani v. State of Maharashtra
Bhikoba Shatikar Dhumal v. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.