Back
1996 Supreme(Raj) 550
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Honble R.R. YADAV, J.
Madan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2057 of 1996
Decided On : September 16, 1996
M.C. Bhoot, for Petitioner
Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act – Sub-section 4 (i) to (iii) of Section 101 and Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural purposes) Rules, 1970 – Rule 6(3) – Allotment cancelled – The cancellation has been done under the aforesaid Rule which is in contravention of the aforesaid section 101, which has laid down an exhaustive procedure – Held – In such a situation a harmoneous interpretation has to be given. (Paras 5 & 6)(b) Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Section 175 – and Constitution of India – Article 14 – Is this Rajasthan Act (its section 175) violative of Article 14? – No – This provision section 175 cannot be challenged unless it is shown that this Act controverts in relation to Article 31-A of the Constitution – The section is for the advancement of socially backward people.
It is settled principle of law that in such situation statutory provisions are to be interpreted harmoniously so that all the provisions may continue to be workable and any of the provisions may not become redundant. (Para 5)
The harmoneous interpretation of sub-sec. (4) (i) to (iii) of Sec. 101 would be that the list of preferences envisaged under the aforesaid Section are only illustrative not exhaustive. The State Government in exercise of its power under clause (xviii) of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 261 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 101 of the said Act has power to frame Rules for allotment of agricultural land providing a manner in which such land is to be allotted. Thus in my considered opinion, Rule 6(3) of Rules of 1970 is not in contravention of sub-sec. (4) (i) to (iii) of Sec. 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act but it is intravires. (Para 6)
It is true that Art. 14 envisaged doctrine of equality before law and equal treatment not only with the persons similarly circumstances but also in those cases where the act of the State is perse arbitrary. The act of framing of the Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1970 by the State Government cannot said to be by any stretch of imagination to be per se arbitrary because it is saved under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution which provides that nothing in this Article or in clause (2) of Art. 29 shall prevent the State from making any such provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward citizens or the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. These rules tend to emolerate the economic conditions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. (Para 9)
(2). Perused the orders passed by learned Additional District Collector, Jalore, learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi camp at Jalore and the Board of Revenue, respondent No.2 cancelling the allotment of the petitioner on the ground inter-alia that the land cannot be allotted to him as envisaged under Rule 6(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1970).
(3). The petitioner has been non-suited by all the courts below.
(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M.C. Bhoot urged before me that provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1970 are ultravires to the statutory provisions envisaged under sub-sec. 4(i) to (iii) of Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It is to be noticed that Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1970 has been framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (xviii) of sub-sec. (2) of Section 261 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955 read with Section 101 of the said Act. The provisions contemplated under sub-sec. 4(i) to (iii) of Sec. 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provide that if there is more than one person requiring the same land, the allotment shall be in the following order :–
(i) to co-sharers of the holding if it forms part of a compact block or is irrigated from the same source, preference amongst such co-sharers being given to one having land less than the area prescribed by the rules made under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
(ii) to persons residing in the village in which land be situated, preference amongst such persons being given to persons having no land or less than the area prescribed by the said Rules, and
(iii) by drawing lots : provided that the area so taken together with the area held by such person does not exceed the area prescribed by the said Rules.
(5). It is urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the procedure prescribed about allotment of land to agriculturist under sub-sec. (4) (i) to (iii) of Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is exhaustive, therefore, the Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1970 are to be treated to be in contravention of the aforesaid section. The aforesaid argument is not acceptable to me for the reason that it is settled principle of law that in such situation statutory provisions are to be interpreted harmoniously so that all the provisions may continue to be workable and any of the provisions may not become redundant. If the aforesaid contention is accepted then the provisions contained under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act would become redundant which provides that to save as otherwise provided elsewhere by this Act, land for agricultural purpose shall be allotted by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government in this behalf.
(6). In my opinion the harmoneous interpretation of sub-sec. (4) (i) to (iii) of Sec. 101 would be that the list of preferences envisaged under the aforesaid Section are only illustrative not exhaustive. The State Government in exercise of its power under clause (xviii) of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 261 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 101 of the said Act has power to frame Rules for allotment of agricultural land providing a manner in which such land is to be allotted. Thus in my considered opinion, Rule 6(3) of Rules of 1970 is not in contravention of sub-sec. (4) (i) to (iii) of Sec. 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act but it is intravires.
(7). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sec. 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Suffice it to say in this regard that the provisions contained under Rajasthan Tenancy Act has been placed at serial No. 55 of IXth Schedule of the Constitution, therefore, its vires cannot be challenged unless it is show
