Legal Representative of Bhagwani Devi, Bharat Bhusan vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2729 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO.24939 OF 2019)

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF BHAGWANI DEVI, BHARAT BHUSAN …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed

by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 06.03.2019, thereby allowing

the intra court appeal filed by the respondents/State, which

was in turn filed challenging the judgment and order passed

by the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2007 allowing the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2023.04.17 19:11:40 IST writ petition filed by the appellant.

Reason: 1

3. The facts in the present case are not disputed. The land

in question was allotted to Shri Lal Chand, son of Shri Ghasi

Ram, and sanad was issued in his favour. The said Lal

Chand proceeded to sell the land for consideration by way of

agreement to sell dated 05.06.1986 in favour of Bela Ram,

son of Chamba Ram. Bela Ram made an application under

Section 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (Act

No.XXVII of 1954) (for short, ‘the Act’) for declaration of the

same as valid by making payment of compounding fee to the

State.

4. Subsequently, the agreement came to be cancelled by

mutual consent. However, on 09.08.1990 Chandra Bhan,

son of Bela Ram made an application for depositing the

compounding fee, stating that in the family partition, the said

land had fallen to his share. The said application was

rejected by the Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar

vide order dated 24.04.1995.

5. The said order came to be challenged before the

Revenue Appellate Authority, which also rejected the appeal 2 on 14.08.1995. Being further aggrieved, a second appeal

came to be filed before the Board of Revenue, which was also

rejected on 13.07.1998. Being aggrieved thereby, a writ

petition challenging the aforesaid orders came to be filed by

the present appellant, who had purchased the property in the

interregnum on 04.07.1991.

6. During the course of hearing before the learned Single

Judge, learned government advocate fairly submitted that in

the proceedings relating to Bela Ram under Section 13-A of

the Act, the land could not have been resumed in favour of

the State Government, at least without providing an

opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

7. Learned counsel further stated that in view of the

amendment in law i.e. Section 13 of the Act and subsequent

notification dated 22.04.1991, the sale in favour of the writ

petitioner was unassailable. As such, the learned Single

Judge allowed the petition and set aside the orders including

the order of resumption of land.

3

8. Being aggrieved thereby, the State preferred an appeal.

In appeal, the learned Division Bench reversed the order. It

held that the finding with regard to non-following of principle

of natural justice was unsustainable. It further observed

that in view of the notification dated 22.04.1991, the

restrictions on transfers was still in operation and as such,

set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

9. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

10. Shri Ankur Sood, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant, submitted that the restrictions on alienation

in so far as the property in question is concerned was

brought into effect vide notification dated 30.11.1971. He

further submitted that, however, vide subsequent notification

dated 03.10.1985, notification dated 30.11.1971 has been

repealed, thereby removing the restrictions. He, therefore,

submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

11. Shri Sandeep Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf 4 of the respondents, on the contrary submits that in view of

the notification dated 22.04.1991, the restrictions have been

reimposed and as such the finding of the Division Bench

warrants no interference.

12. It is pertinent to be noted that the order passed by the

learned Single Judge was basically on the concession made

by the learned counsel for the State.

13. In any case, for the reasons recorded hereinbelow, we

find that there was no reason for the learned Judges of the

Division Bench to interfere with the order of the learned

Single Judge.

14. It would be relevant to refer to notification dated

30.11.1971 which reads as under:

“Part 4(c) Rajasthan Gazette, November 30, 1971 Revenue (Colonization) Department

Notification Jaipur, November 30, 1971

S.O. 138:- In pursuance of Rule 2(9) of the Allotment of Government Land in Rajasthan 5 Canal Project Region to the Temporary Agricultural Lease Holders and Other Landless Persons Rules, 1971 after Rajasthan Colonization, 1955, State Government hereby declares the areas mentioned in Columns No.3 to 6 of Schedule as Colonization Tehsils:-

Details of boundary of Rajasthan Canal Project, various Colonization Tehsil Area

Sl. Name of Village Holding Area Special No. Colonization details In acres In sq. details Tehsil miles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Naurangdesar Total Colonization 101068 157.62 Tehsil Naurangdesar 2 Hanumangarh Total Colonization 87211 136.27 Tehsil Hanumangarh 3 Rawatsar Total Colonization 122148 175.23 Tehsil Rawatsar 4 Vijaynagar Total Colonization 126461 197.60 Tehsil Vijaynagar

No.F.3(a)(108) Rev/Kol/71

By the order of Governor Munga Lal Sureka Deputy Secretary to Government”

15. A perusal thereof would reveal that the area of

Vijaynagar was brought into the ambit of the said Act,

thereby prohibiting any transfers.

6 16. However, it would also be relevant to refer to notification

dated 3.10.1985, which reads:-

“Govt. of Rajasthan Revenue (Colonization) Department

Serial No.P-4/21/Raj/Deputy/02 Jaipur rd Dated 3 Oct., 1985

Notification

In continuation of Rule-2 (1) (viii) of Rajasthan Colonization (allotment and sale of government land in Indira Gandhi canal area) Rules 1975, the state Govt. repeal Notification No.F-3/A/108/Rev./Col/71 dated 30th November, 1971 of this Department with immediate effect.

By the order of the Governor Sd/- Illegible 28.09.1985 (C.L. Jain) Deputy Secretary to the Government

17. It is thus clear that vide the 1985 notification, the 1971

notification has been repealed, thereby lifting the embargo,

which was created by the 1971 notification.

18. Insofar as 1991 notification is concerned, a perusal

thereof would reveal that vide the said notification the State

Government excludes the operation of the said Act, in respect

of areas situated inside Indira Gandhi Canal and Gangnahar 7 Projects, and as such the reliance placed by the learned

Judges of the Division Bench on the said notification is

totally without substance.

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned

judgment and order is quashed and set aside and the order

of the learned Single Judge is restored.

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

..............................J. (ARAVIND KUMAR)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 11, 2023.

8