Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – s.42 – Land transaction – Legality –Land was allotted to ‘C’, the father of respondent, as a Scheduled Caste landless person – C borrowed a sum from one ‘P’ who allegedly, fraudulently, made ‘C’ to sign sale deed in favor of appellant , a resident of Punjab – ‘C’ filed suit for ejectment against ‘P’ and appellant – Trial court held that the land was in possession of ‘P’ who was not Scheduled Caste person and the sale deed was in violation of s.13 of Rajasthan Colonization Act, as well as in breach of s.42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and therefore, ‘P’ was liable to be evicted – Aggrieved by the order/ decree of trial court, appellant filed appeal before Revenue Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed – Further appeal of appellant before Board of Revenue was allowed, which gave benefit of compounding to appellant on payment of compounding fees u/s.13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act – Respondent filed writ petition which was dismissed by a Single Judge of High Court – On appeal, Division Bench set aside the judgment of Single Judge holding that appellant, being resident and a Scheduled caste belonging to Punjab, could not take benefit of his being Scheduled caste – Held: Merely because the appellant’s grandfather and father had purchased the agricultural lands in the State of Rajasthan, the appellant cannot be said to be an ordinarily resident of Rajasthan – Appellant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person and therefore sale transaction in favour of appellant was in clear breach and/or in violation of s.42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale transaction in favour of appellant can be said to be in breach of s.13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act – Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – s.13.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Merely because the appellant’s grandfather and father had purchased the agricultural lands in the State of Rajasthan, the appellant cannot be said to be an ordinarily resident of Rajasthan. As per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there is a restriction on sale, gift or bequest by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste. Looking to the object and purpose of such a provision, it can be said that the said provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan. [Paras 6.1 and 7][404-E, G-H; 405-A]
2.1. In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or an ordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State for the purpose of employment, education etc. The decision of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another is applicable with full force to the facts of the present case also. The submission on behalf of the appellant that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in that case the Court was considering the issue with respect to employment, education and in the present case dispute is with respect to sale /sale of property has no substance. There is no reason to restrict the applicability of the said decision only with respect to employment, education or the like and not to make applicable the same with respect to purchase and sale of the property in case of sale and purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person in the State of Rajasthan and when the said land was allotted to the original land owner as Scheduled Caste landless person. [Paras 7.1 and 8][406-C-F; 408-C-G]
2.2. The appellant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person and therefore the sale transaction in favour of the appellant was in clear breach and / or in violation of s.42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. [Para 10][409-E-G]
2.3. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale transaction in favour of the appellant can be said to be in breach of s.13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. When the Board of Revenue granted the benefit of compounding under Section13A(2), an order of ejection of appellant was already passed against him and ‘P’, and the possession was already handed over to respondent from ‘P’, who was found to be in actual physical possession of the land on 30.12.1980. s.13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 would be applicable only in a case where an order of ejectment has been passed, but a person against whom an order of ejectment has been passed has not actually been ejected from the land transferred. In that view of the matter, no order of compounding in favour of the appellant and /or even ‘P’’ could have been passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of power under s.13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. [Para 11][409-G-H; 410-A-D]
Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another v. Union of India and
Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 714 – held applicable.
Marri Chandra Shekar Rao v. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 130 : [1990] 2 SCR
843 – followed.
Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [2019]
15 SCC 664 – relied on.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, (2018) 10 SCC 312 : [2018] 10 SCR 513 – referred to.
3. The land transaction in favour of the appellant was in breach of s.13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and s.42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which was rightly held to be void by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 12][410-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.