Skip to content


Hardamsingh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1763/1982
Judge
Reported in1982WLN597
AppellantHardamsingh
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredSanwalram v. The Additional District Magistrate and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
Excerpt:
.....government record. unless that is made it is clear, it can not be said that the computation of the ceiling area of the petitioner's land was made in accordance with the provisions of the act. for determination of the ceiling area, the computation of the petitioner's land for the purpose of the ceiling is required to be made both, under the new ceiling law as well as under the old ceiling law and it is only, thereafter, it can be found as to whether the ceiling area determined under the new ceiling law exceeds the ceiling area under the old ceiling law or not.;the computation of ceiling area under the new ceiling law has to be made in accordance with the provisions under the new ceiling law. as it has not been clarified that the computation of the ceiling area of the petitioner's land is..........biswas as dry land and in this manner the petitioner was having 40 bighas 14 biswas, whereas, his ceiling area comes to 43 bighas 4 biswas. as the petitioner was having the land within the ceiling area, he dropped the proceedings. the deputy secretary, in his impugned order considering the provision contained in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4 of the act expressed that under the old ceiling law, the petitioner can hold 46 bighas 18 biswas land and also stated that under the new ceiling law as well, the petitioner can hold so much of land under the above proviso. so, the balance of the land becomes resumable. he also expressed that the authorised officer considered the intensity of irrigation on the basis of designed capacity whereas, actual intensity of the irrigation.....
Judgment:

M.C. Jain, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated April 4, 1980 (Ex 2) passed by the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Ceiling), whereby the petitioner's case was ordered to be re-opened under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act').

2. The Authorised Officer decided the petitioner's ceiling case by his order dated May 31, 1975 (Ex.1). The petitioner was having 46 Bighas 18 Biswas Nehari land and 13 Bighas 10 Biswas Barani land, total 60 Bighas 8 Biswas. Considering the different intensity of irrigation, the Authorised Officer determined the total irrigated land of the petitioner to be 38 Bighas, and 2 Bighas and 14 Biswas as dry land and in this manner the petitioner was having 40 Bighas 14 Biswas, whereas, his ceiling area comes to 43 Bighas 4 Biswas. As the petitioner was having the land within the ceiling area, he dropped the proceedings. The Deputy Secretary, in his impugned order considering the provision contained in the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act expressed that under the old ceiling law, the petitioner can hold 46 Bighas 18 Biswas land and also stated that under the new ceiling law as well, the petitioner can hold so much of land under the above proviso. So, the balance of the land becomes resumable. He also expressed that the Authorised Officer considered the intensity of irrigation on the basis of designed capacity whereas, actual intensity of the irrigation should have been considered.

3. Mr. S. N Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's land under the new ceiling law, falls much below the ceiling limit provided under the new ceiling law. His land does not exceed the ceiling area, which was applicable to the petitioner under the old ceiling law so there was no occasion for the Deputy Secretary to reopen the petitioner's ceiling case under Section 15 (1) of the Act. He urged that the method of computation of the ceiling area under the old ceiling law and under the new ceiling law, are different. The computation under the old ceiling law is based on the productivity of the land whereas the computation under the new ceiling law is based on the assured irrigation, and whether the land is of assured irrigation from the Government or private source capable of growing two or one crop in a year or not, has to be determined in accordance with Sub-rule (3) of rule 5. The Authorised Officer considering the intensity of irrigation m different chaks has computed the ceiling area of the petitioner and finding that the land with the petitioner is within the ceiling area has dropped the proceedings He urged that the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, would come into operation, only when, the ceiling area determined under the Act exceeds the ceiling area under the old ceiling law. In case, the ceiling area under the new ceiling law exceeds, then a person's ceiling area would be considered that which is the ceiling area, under the old law.

4. So far as the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act is concerned, it clearly lays down that a ceiling area of a person determined in accordance with the provision of the Act, exceeds the ceiling area applicable to the person according to the provision of the old ceiling law then in that case, the ceiling area of the person would be the same, as it was under the Old Ceiling Law. This proviso would not be attracted, if the ceiling area determined under the Act, does not exceed the ceiling area applicable to the person according to the Old Ceiling Law. Under Section 4 of the Act, the ceiling area prescribed is 18 Acres and when the land under assured irrigation capable of growing at least one crop in a year, it is 27 acres, Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act provides that the question as to whether the land under assured irrigation is capable of growing one or two crops in a year, shall be determined by the Anthorised Officer in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Rules provides for holding an enquiry by the Authorised Officer and for determination of the question, intensity of irrigation of the land, is a most important and relevant factor. The determination of the on question, as to whether the land is capable of growing two or one crop in a year, is dependent on intensity of irrigation of the land. For determination of the intensity of irrigation of the, land the Authorised Officer is empowered to make an enquiry from all sources including from the irrigation Department of the Government and that intensity of irrigation of the land has to be taken into consideration, which was in the preceding year, in which the question is required to be decided. It is not known, on what basis the Authorised Officer considered the intensity of the irrigation of the petitioner's land. The order of the Authorised Officer, nowhere, states that the basis of intensity of irrigation is an enquiry made from the irrigation Department or on the basis of any Government record. Unless that is made it clear, it can not be said that the computation of the ceiling area of the petitioner's land was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. For determination of the ceiling area, the computation of the petitioner's land for the purposes of the ceiling is required to be made both, under the New Ceiling Law as well as under the Old Ceiling Law and it is only, thereafter, it can be found as to whether the Ceiling area determined under the New Ceiling Law exceeds the ceilling area under the Old Ceiling Law or not. In the absence of such computation under both the laws, the matter could not have been disposed of. So far as the petitioner's land is concerned, under the Old Ceiling Law, the petitioner's ceiling area admittedly comes to 46 Bighas 18 Biswas of Nehri land. The computation of ceiling area under the New Ceiling Law has to be made in accordance with the provisions under the New Ceiling Law. As it has not been clarified that the computation of the ceiling area of the petitioner's land is correctly made, I find full justification in the order of the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Ceiling) for reopening the petitioner's ceiling case. As stated above, the Authorised Officer is required to compute the ceiling area of the petitioner in accordance with the New Ceiling Law, then decide as to whether the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act at all applies to the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any ground for interference in the order of reopening made by the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Ceiling).

5. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised other contentions as well, which are covered by the decision of this Court in Sanwalram v. The Additional District Magistrate and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 481 of 1980, decided on October 15, 1981, so I need not deal with them here.

6. No other point has been pressed before me.

7. In the result, this writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //