Skip to content


Sanwat Singh and 13 ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2928 and others of 1974
Judge
Reported in1983WLN(UC)252
AppellantSanwat Singh and 13 ors.
RespondentThe Board of Revenue and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredTirath Das v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Excerpt:
rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 - section 14 and rajasthan colonization act, 1954--section 13--application of--transferees of ex jagirdars allottees--held, provisions of 13 are applicable to transfer of tenancy rights.;if the provisions of the colonisation act are made applicable, as they indeed are applicable, to all lands situated in a colony, by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of that act, then section 13 would automatically become applicable to any transfer of tenancy rights in respect of lands situated in a colony.;(b) rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 - section 14 and rajasthan colonization act, 1954--section 13 and rajasthan land revenue act, 1956--section 83--revisionjurisdiction--deputy minister has no jurisdiction to hear.....dwarka prasad gupta, j.1. these 14 writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and as such it would be proper to dispose them of by a common order.2. in all the 14 writ petitions, the salient features which are not in dispute are that on the resumption of jagir lands under section 14 of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 (here in after referred to as 'the act') some of the ex-jagirdars were allotted khudkasht lands in the commanded area of the bhakra project on concessional terms and conditions. rule 15(2) of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs, rules, 1954 provides that a jagirdar, to whom land commanded by the bhakra, chambal or jawai projects is allotted, should be entitled to concessions specified therein and 25 bighas of.....
Judgment:

Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.

1. These 14 writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and as such it would be proper to dispose them of by a common order.

2. In all the 14 writ petitions, the salient features which are not in dispute are that on the resumption of Jagir lands Under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') some of the ex-jagirdars were allotted Khudkasht lands in the commanded area of the Bhakra Project on concessional terms and conditions. Rule 15(2) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs, Rules, 1954 provides that a Jagirdar, to whom land commanded by the Bhakra, Chambal or Jawai projects is allotted, should be entitled to concessions specified therein and 25 bighas of irrigated lard constituting one Murrabba may be allotted to the ex-jagirdar at a fixed price to be realised free of interest in 10 annual instalments, commencing two years after the date of allotment. Special Rules were framed by the State Government in order to facilitate allotment of agricultural land in the command areas of Bhakra Project to ex jagirdas and the Rules so framed are called the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirr (Concessions for Khudkasht in Bhakra Project Area) Rules, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Bhakra Rules') The Bhakra Rules provided for allotment of khudkasth land to ex-jagirdars in Bhakra project area by tie Collector on the basis of the recommendations made by the Commissioner for Khudkasht Lands and in order of priority determined by him. It was proposed that initially the allotment of land be made in favour of the ex-jagirdars on ghair-khatedari basis or as an interim temporary lease for 3 years, to the extent of one Murrabba on 25 bighas tor each allottee, on such price as may be fixed by the Commissioner for Khudkasht lands with the sanction off the State Government. It was also provided that ghair-khatedari tenancy shall be granted for a period of 12 years commencing from the date of allotment by the Collector and the price of the lands to be allotted shall be paid by the grantee in 15 annual instalments free of interest. Provision was also made that upon payment of price of such land, including other charges, according to instalments allowed by the aforesaid Rules or on full payment of the entire amount in lump sum at an earlier date, if the grantee so wishes, khatedari rights would accrue to the grantee in accordance with the General Colony Conditions for the time being in force, as issued Under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954. It was also provided in the Bhakra Rules that the instalments in respect of the price of the land would become payable annually on the expiry of two years from the date of allotment of the land to the grantee by the Collector. Rule 2 of the Bhakr Rules declares that alotment of land in Bhakra project area under the said Rules would be governed also by the statement of general Colony Conditions issued under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. 1954 and for the time being in force, in so far as the said conditions are not repugnant to those Rules.

3. It is not disputed that after the lands were allotted in accordance with the provisions of the Bhakra Rules to the ex-jagirdars, the grantees in ail the writ petitions sold their tenancy rights to third parties by means of registered sale deeds. In some of the cases the grantees had paid full price of the lands allotted to them and as such they were entitled to khatedari rights in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Bhakra Rules. Thus the grantees, who were the ex-jagirdars and were allotted lands in the Bhakra Project area on concessional terms and on priority basis, had trans erred their khatedari rights by sale to third parties. When the fact of transfer of tenancy light by the ex-jagirdars was discovered, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar gave notices to the allottees of grantees to show-cause why their allotments be not cancelled and the lands be not resumed. It is important to mention here that the ex-jagirdars, who had transferred their khatedari rights or other tenancy rights in the lands allotted to them under the Bhakra Rules, did not obtain prior permission of the Collector for effecting the transfer of the tenancy rights. The explanation furnished by the ex-jagirdars in each case was found by the Collector to be unsatisfactory and it was held that there was no justifiable basis for the transfer of tenarcy rights by the ex-jagirdars The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, therefore, held that the transfers made by the ex-jagirdars by way of sale in favour of third parties were void and he further directed that the lands allotted to the ex-jagirdars may be resumed. In someof the cases revision petitions were preferred by the grantees or their transferees to the State Government, which were heard by the Deputy Minister Colonisation during the year 1971, who allowed the transfers subject to payment of fine of Rs. 500/- by the allottees or their transferees within a priod of one month. However, it was discovered that by a notification dated April 17, 1967 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated April 18, 1967 the powers of hearing revision petitions in nonjudicial matters, Under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, were delegated by the State Government to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and as such the orders passed by the Deputy Minister Colonisation in the year 1971 was considered to be ineffective and all the revision, petitions filed before the State Government were transferred to the Board of Revenue by the State Government for disposal. The Board of Revenue heard all the revision petitions filed Under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, against the orders passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and dismissed them by a common order dated November 1, 1973. The transferees of lands allotted to the ex-jagirdars have filed the present writ petitions in this Court against the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, except in the case of Sanwatsingh.

4. In Sanwatsingh's case, the Board of Revenue passed a separate order on August 28, 1974, although following the earlier decision passed in other similar cases on November 1,1973 and in that case both the ex-jagirdar and the transferee have together joined to file a writ petition in this Court. However, the facts which are common in all the writ petitions, including that of Sanwatsingh, is that not only the transfer of the tenancy lights of the ex-jagirdars in agricultural lands by way of sale has been admitted, but it has also been admitted in each and every case that the respective transferees were put into possession of the agricultural land in question by the concerned transferors.

5. The principal question, which was canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions, is that khatedari rights were conferred upon or accrued to the ex-jagirdars Under Rule 16 of the Bhakra Rules and since no rights were vested in the ex-jagirdars or their transferees by virtue of the provisions of the Colonisation Act or the Rules made there Under Section 13 of the Colonisation Act had no application to the cases of transfers of khudkasht lands made by the ex jagirdars and such transfers could not be held to be void on account of the provisions of Section 13 of the Colonisation Act. It was also argued that even if Section 13 of the Colonisation Act was applicable, then the Board of Revenue could have declared the transfer of tenancy rights by way of sale to be void and the transferees could have been ordered to be ejected from the lands transferred to them, but the tenancies created in favour of the ex-jagirdars could not be determined and no order regarding resumption of such tenancy rights could have been passed. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the ex-jagirdars having paid the full price of the lands allotted to them as khudkasht, khatedari rights in such lands accrued to them and they were free to transfer such khatedari rights as there was no prohibition against transfers of khatedari rights either in the Bhakra Rules or in the General Colony Conditions, which became applicable by the virtue of the provisions of Rules 2 and 16 of the Bhakra Rules. Learned Counsel also sought to distinguish the allotment of khudkasht land under the Bhakra Rules from the allotment of lands under the Rajasthan Colonisation (General Colony) Conditions,1955 and it was pointed out that the terms and conditions of allotment in both the cases were widely different and even though the general colony conditions might have been trade applicable to the allotment of khudkasht lands to the ex-jagiidars under the Bhakra Rules, yet there was no bar to alienation of tenancy rights in khudkasbt lands, at least after the acquisition of khatedari rights therein.

6. Section 19 of the Jagir Resumption Act specifies the categories of lands which can be allotted to the ex-jagirdars as 'khudkasht' and Clause (vi) of Sub-section (b) of Section 19 includes in such category laad commanded by the Bhakra or Chambal project or by the Jawai Bund or by any other irrigation project, subject to the proviso that the allotment of such land as khudhasht shall be on such concessional terms and conditions as may be prescribed On an applicat on made for allotment of khudkasht land Uuder Section 14 of the Jagir Resumption Act, the Commissioner for khudkasht or the Collector as the case may, after holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, may allot khudkasht land to the ex-jagirdar. The concessions which are to be allowed to an ex-jagirdar, while granting khudkasht land to him in the Bhakra. Chambal and Jawai Bund Projects, have been enumerated in Sub-rule(2) of Rule 15 of the Jagir Resumption Rules. The Collector is authorised to make allotment of agricultural lands in such order of priority as may be furnished to him by the Commissioner for Khudkasht Lands, out of a particular block of lands which may be reserved by the state Government for allotment of khudkasht land to the ex-jagirdars. The concessional terms and condition for allotment of land to the ex-jagirdars have been specified in detail in the Bhakri Rules. They include an extended period of 12 years of ghair khatedari tenancy, on allotment of land as khudkasht to the ex-jagirdars on such price as may be fixed by the Commissioner for Khudkasht. A special feature of the concessronal terms and conditions on which agricultural lands have been allotted to the ex-jagirdars is that the grantees were allowed to make payment of the price of the land allotted to them in 15 annual instalments and such payment of price was to commence not earlier than two years from the date of allotment of such lands to the concerned grantees by the Collector Thus, the intention appears to be that the grantees may be allowed two years period to develop the lands allotted to them by the Collector and thereafter they may make payment of the price of such land in easy annual instalments extending over a long period of 15 years, without payment of any interest There is no doubt that the terms and conditions contained in the Bhakra Rules,on which agricultural lands were allotted to the ex-jagirdars were more liberal than those contained in the General Colony Conditions It is because of this reason that both Section 19(1)(v) of the Jagir Resumption Act and Rule 15(2) of the Jagir Resumption Rules specifically provide for allottment of land to the ex jagirdars as khudkasht in the Bhakra, Chambal and Jawai Bund project areas or in any other irrigation project on concessional terms and conditions. The allotments made in favour of ex-jagirdars undoubtedly allowed special concessions to them. It is possible that such special allotment of lands with several concession attached there to may be made subiect to some restrictive conditions as well Although there may be no special restrictions imposed on such allotment of lands for Khudkasht purposes yet such allotments have been made subject to the terms and conditions contained in General Colony Conditions, Not only that Rule 16 of the Bhakra Rules provides that the khatedari rights shall accrue to the ex-jagirdars in the lauds so allotted to them in accordance with the provisions of General Colony Conditions, but Rule 2 of the Bhakra Rules specifically provides that allotment of land in Bhakra project area under those Colony Conditions issued under the Colonisation Act.

7. It was further argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of Rule 2 of the Bhakra Rules, even if General Colony Conditions have been made applicable to the allotment of Khudkasht lands to the ex-jagirdars, yet the provisions of the Colonisation Act including Sections 13 and 14 thereof, could not be attracted to such allotments. Section 8 of the Colonisation Act makes the provisions of that Act applicable to lands in a colony and it cannot be denied that the lands allotted to the ex-jagirdars, according to the provisions of Bhakra Rules, are situated in Bhakra project area, which is a colony, as defined in Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Colonrsation Act. The statement of General Colony Conditions, 1955 issued under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Colonisation Act provides that the conditions prescribed there in shall be subject to the provisions of the Act and all giants of land made under the Act, whether by way of ghair khatedari or khatedari, shall be subject to the provisions of the Act so far as they are applicable there to. Condition No. 9 of the General Colony Conditions provides that on payment of the full price by the grantee, he shall be entitled to receive a Sanad from the Government conferring upon him the right of a khatedar tenant in the said land Thereafter the grantee shall hold and possess the said land, subject for ever to all the provisions and stipulations contained in the Statement of General Colony Conditions and the tenancy shall continue until it is determined by operation of law or according to the general or special conditions applicable there to. In General Colony Conditions, the only provisions relating to bar against alienation is contained in Sub-clause (10) of Clause 17 and a grantee is prohibited from transferring or attempting to transfer any right, title or interest in or possession of the whole or any part of the land allotted to him, without the previous sanction in writing of the State Government, till the khatedari rights in the said land have accrued to the grantee. But after the accrual of the khatedari rights to the grantee in accordance with Clause (9) of the General Colony Conditions, there appears to be no prohibition against transfer by sale or otherwise by the grantee.

8. Mr. Maheshwari, on the other hand, argued that Section 13 of the Colonisation Act itself contains a prohibition against transfer of tenancy rights by sale or otherwise, without the consent of the Collector in writing and further it has been provided that if such a transfer is made without the consent of the Collector, the same shall be void. Section 13 of the Colonisation Act runs as under:

13. Transfer of rights:--(1) No tenant shall transfer or charge his right or interest vested in him by or under this Act, without the consent in writing of the Collector by way of sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or in any manner otherwise than by exchange as permitted by Section 12, except to the State Government or except by way of mortgage, for the purpose of obtaining a loan for development of his holding from the State Government or a land development bank as defined in the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Rajasthan Act 13 of 1965), or any scheduled bank or any other institution notified by the State Government in thai behalf in the Official Gazette, or sub-let the same for more than five years in the case of a tenant who has acquired Khatedari rights.

(2) Any such transfer, sub-lease or charge made in contravention of Sub-section (1) shall be void and if the transferee has obtained possession he shall be ejected under the orders of the Collector.

9. If the provisions of the Colonisation Act are made applicable, as they indeed are applicable, to all lands situated in a colony, by virtue of the provisions of Section 3 of that Act, then Section 13 would automatically become aplicable to any transfer of tenancy rights in respect of lands situated in a colony. The emphasis of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is upon the words 'vested in him or under this Act' occurring in Section 13 of the Act and is urged that whatever rights have been vested in the ex-jagirdars by virtue of the Jagir Resumption Act or the Rules made there under, including the Bhakra Rules, are not 'by or under' the Colonisation Act. It may be pointed out in this connection that the legislature has not only prohibited by Section 13 the transfer of any right or interest vested in a tenant by the Colonisation Act without the written consent of the Collector but has also prohibited the transfer without permission of the rights or interest which has accrued to the tenant under the Act, as already pointed out above. Clause 2 of the Bhakra Rules expressly made the allotment of land in Bhakra Project area to ex-jagirdars as 'khudkast' land governed also by the Statement of General Colony Conditions. Clause 3(b) of the General Colony Conditions specifies that conferment of khatedari rights under that statement shall be subject to the provisions of the Act, so far as they are applicable there to Thus, it may be said that the rights, which have accrued to the ex-jagirdars in respect of the khudkasht lands may not have been granted to them under the Colonisation Act, but there can be no doubt that the conferment of khatedari rights to such persons, being governed by the General Colony Conditions, should be deemed to be vested in them under the Colonisation Act and shall be governed by the provisions of the Act. The General Colony Conditions derive their strength from or rather owe their existence to Section 7(1) of the Colonisat on Act, which authorises the State Government to grant land in a colony to any person on such conditions as may be prescribed. Section 27 of the Colonisation Act is also relevant in this context. A perusal of the provisions of Sections 7 and 27 go to show that any grant of land in a colony was intended to be made under the provisions of the Colonisation Act even if it was made before the promulgation of the Colonisation Act. such grant would be deemed to have been made under the said Act The reason obviously is that the conditions prescribed in the Statement issued under the Colonisation Act are made applicable to every grant made in respect of land situated within a colony. As Rules 2 and 16 of the Bhakra Rules also refer to the fact that khatedari rights shall accrue in the lands allotted to ex-jagirdars in accordance with the provisions of the general colony conditions, the grant of land in a colony shall be governed by the statement contained in the General Colony Conditions. The mere fact that the ex-jagirdars were allotted land on concessional terms will not take such allotment of lands out of the purview of the provisions of the Colonisation Act and the statement of General Colony Conditions issued there under. It may be recalled that khudkasht lands were allotted to ex-jagirdars as part of compensation ayable to them for resumption of their Jagir lands and with a view to rehabilitate the ex-jagirdars who were interested in taking up the vocation of agriculture after the resumption of their jagirs. It was contemplated, while granting lands to the ex-jagirdars on concessional terms and conditions and giving them the benefit of extended period of payment of price, which was also to begin after the expiry of two years after the date of allotment, that the grantees would thereby be rehabilitated and that they would utilise such allotment of land for adopting the profession of agriculture. But it was not contemplated that such grantees would transfer khatedari rights in the lands allotted to them in the colony or that they had a preferrential right of transfer because they were given special priority for allotment of lands in the colony. It cannot be doubted that Section 13 of the Colonisation Act creates a complete bar against alienation of lands granted in a colony, without the consent of the Collector, irrespective of the manner in which such allotment was made to different class of persons. The circumstance, which would make the provisions of the Act and the General Colony Conditions applicable, is that the allotment has been made of land in a colony. The manner in which such allotment has been made or the special concessions allowed in the matter of allotment, may call for imposition of further restrictions on the rights of the grantees in the matter of transfer. But at any rate it cannot be visualised that such grantees of lands in a colony would not be subjected to same treatment as is applicable to other allottees of lands in the very same area. The Rajasthan Colonisation Bhakra Project (Government India. Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1955 provide general procedure for allotment of lands in the Bhakra Project Area The ex-jagirdars were allowed some concessions as they were intended to be rehabilitated by allotment of lands in the Bhakra Project Area, after the resumption of their jagir lands and as such thay were given special priority and a block of land was reserved for allotment to them in the Bhakra Project area, Besides the special priority allowed to them, allotment of land was made on concessional terms and conditions referred to above. In such circumstances, it is difficult to appreciate the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the ex-jagirdars, who were allotted lands in the Bhakra project area under the Bhakra Rules, should not be subjected 10 disabilities and restrictions imposed upon the other allottees of the lands in the very same area, under the provisions of the Act and the General Colony Conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioners at one stage argued that the General Colon) Conditions may not be considered to be applicable to the allotment of lands made in favour of the ex-jagirdar, but that submission is untenable in view of the fact that Rule 2 of the 1955 Rules clearly lays down that the statement of the General Colony Conditions issued under the Colonisation Act shall govern the allotment of lands in the Bhakra project area, besides the Bhakra Rules Thus, the grantees of land under the Bhakra Rules were subjected to the conditions contained in the General Colony Conditions also besides the provisions laid down in the said Rules, in so. far as they are not inconsistent with the Bhakra Rules, wherein special conditions have been laid down in respect of the allotment of lands made to the ex-jagirdars But apart from inconsistencies, the allotment of land in favour of exjagirdars in the Bhakra project area would also be governed by the provisions of the Act and the General Colony Conditions. As there is no provision in the Bhakra Rules and the General Colony Conditions imposing any restrictions on transfer of such lands after the accrual of Khatedari rights, the general restrictions contained in Section 13 of the Act would necessarily govern all allotment of lands in the Bhakra project area, the same being a colony. Thus, the argument of the learned Counsel that because of the special conditions under which allotment of land was made to ex jagirdars, they would not be governed by the provisions of Section 13, does not appear to be sound. In all these cases, as no attempt was made to obtain the consent of the Collector before effecting transfers in favour of the petitioners, who are the transferees in all cases, except in the case of Sanwatsingh, there can be no hesitation in holding that the transfers made in favour, of the petitioners are void, with the consequence that the tansferees, who have taken possession of such lands are liable to be ejected under the orders of the Collector.

10. Although the Collector in all these cases purporte i to pass an order Under Section 13 of the Colonisation Act, yet he directed that the sales were made in contravention of the provisions of Section 13 of the Colonisation Act and also directed that the lands which were so transferred be resumed. The Board of Revenue, while deciding the revision petitions, amended the order passed by the Collector and held t at the Collector bad no option but to order the eviction of the transferees. Thus, the discrepancy which had occurred in the order passed by the Collector was rectified by the Board of Revenue in directing that Under Section 13(2) the transferees may be evicted from the lands allotted to the ex-jagirdars and transferred by them.

11. An argument was also advanced at one stage that the allotment of land was made in favour of the ex-jagirdars by the Khudkasht Commissioner and as such the Collector had no jurisdiction to declare the transfers as invalid and to terminate the allotments of lands in question. Although the Collector has observed that the Khudkasht Commissioner passed the orders of allotment, yet neither the orders of allotment have been produced by the petitioners before this Court nor it has been shown that the Khudkasht Commissioner was entitled under the Bhakra Rules or under the Jagir Resumption Act or the Rules made thereunder, to make allotment of lands in the Bhakra Project area. A perusal of Rule 7 of the Bhakra Rules would make it clear that although the priority amongst the allottees may be determined by the Commissioner for Khudkasht, yet it is for the Collector to make an order of allotment of land, in order of such priority, in a particular block which may be reserved by the State Government for allotment as khudkasht land. Rules 9 and 11 of the Bhakra Rules also make it clear that the allotment of land has to be nude by the Collector, although the same may be made on the recommendation of the Khudkasht Commissioner. Thus, there is no force in the submission that the allotment was initially made by the Khudkasht Commissioner to the ex-jagirdars and the Collector had no power to set aside such allotments.

12. It was then argued that the Deputy Minister for Colonisation of the State had passed an order, taking a liberal view, confirming the transfers subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as fine in each case and the Board of Revenue could rot review or revise the order passed by the Deputy Minister. But as already indicated above, the Deputy Minister passed the order in the year 1971, when he had no jurisdiction to hear a revision petition in a non judicial matter arising out of the Land Revenue Act or the Colonisation Act. Section 5 of the Colonisation Act makes the provisions of the Land Revenue Act applicable to all tenancies in a colony, subject to the provisions of the Colonistion Act. Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act makes a provision for filing revision petitions in non judicial matters not connected with settlement. The powers for hearing the revision petitions filed Under Section 83 of Land Revenue Act were vested in the State Government but they were transferred by the State Government to the Board of Revenue by a notification dated April 17,1967, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated April 18,1967. The aforesaid Gazette notification specifically provides that all powers Under Section 83 were delegated to the Board of Revenue and as such the State Government had no right or jurisdiction to hear a revision petition against the order of the Collector passed Under Section 13 of the Colonisation Act, after the delegation of all powers in respect of Section 83 by the State Government to the Board of Revenue. Thus, the Deputy Minister had no right to hear and decide the revision petitions filed by the transferees or the ex-jagirdars before the State Government and as such the orders passed by the Deputy Minister were rightly ignored and the revision petitions were transferred to the Board of Revenue for hearing and disposal, as the powers to hear and decide revision petitions filed Under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act have been delegated to the Board as early as in the year 1967. An order passed by the Deputy Minister there after has no binding force and was rightly ignored by the Board of Revenue while deciding the revision petitions afresh.

13. As I have already pointed our above, all the writ petitions have been filed by the transferees except in the case of Sanwatsingh wherein,the transferees as well as the benefit mentioned their hands in filing the writ petition. Once the transfer in held to be void, the transferees have no right to maintain the writ petitions, as they have no subsisting right, title or interest in the disputed lands. Although in Sanwatsingh case the transferor is also one of the petitioners, yet the facts that the transfer was effected without the consent of the Collector and that the transferee has been put into possession have been admitted by the petitioners. Thus, the transferor who has voluntarily transferred possession cannot project the right of the transferess, as the latter was in illegal possession of the land by virtue of a void transfer. The transferees, who have committed breacn of the provisions of Section 13 and have purchased lands granted to the ex-jagirdars on concessional terms and conditions for the obvious purpose of rehabilitating them, have no equitable right to protect and the mere fact that they have parted with substantial amount of money in purchasing the tenancy rights from the ex-jagirdars can hardly be a consideration for granting them any relief in there writ petitions. The transferors, to whom allotments of lands in the colony area were granted at reserved price, on concessional terms and conditions, have misused the facilities afforded to them by the State Government in giving them priority in the matter of allotment, besides other concessions with a view to rehabilitate the ex-jagirdars As the spacial consideration, whicn was shown by the State Government in granting allotment of lands on concessional terms and conditions in favour of the ex-jagirdas, has been misused by them, then it does not lie with the petitioners to urge that any equitable consideration should prevail upon this court to protect their alleged rights.

14. A question regarding transfer of agricultural lands by persons, to whom such lands were allotted for the purpose of rehabilitation as ex-service men, came up for consideration before this court in Tirath Das v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 826 of 1974 decided on April 15,1974), A Division Bench of this court held in the aforesaid case that the transferees had no right to byepass the provisions of law by purchasing the lands from these to whom such lands were allotted for the purpose of rehabilitation and such purchasers cannot invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that case, this court upheld the order passed by the Board of Revenue. IA special leave petition filed by Tirath Das in the aforesaid matter before the Supreme Court of India was dismissed on 5th November, 1976 after notice to the respondents and thus the order passed by this court was approved It was held by the Division Bench in Tirath Das's case that Sections 13 and 14 of the Act clearly debarred the allottees from transferring the land by way of sale, without the prior permission of the Collector and when no attempt was made by the seller or purchaser to obtain permission from the Collector, it was apparent that they had committed breach of the provisions of law in utter disregard of the spirit of rehabilitation which was instrumental in obtaining the allotment of lards. In the cases of ex-jagirdars also, allotments have been made on priority basis on reserve price and also subject to concessional terms and conditions with the sole object of rehabilitating the ex-jagirdars. whose lands were resumed under the Jagir Resumption Act. Put as the allottees parted with the lands so allotted to them on priority basis with an ulterior motive of making profit unlawfully, the breach of the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act cannot be ignored.

15. Another argument which was advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners before me was that the penalty of resumption was very heavy and that this is revocable breach but the Collector did not afford an opportunity to rectify the lapse. The argument deserves to be repelled on the face of it, as a sale once effected by a registerer sale deed cannot be held to be a revocable breach. If a sale of the tenancy rights has been made by the ex-jagirdars in favour of the petitioners, how the petitioners could remedy the breach of the provisions of Section 13. They cannot retrace their steps, as the sale is a completed transaction and cannot be revoked. It was then argued by the learned counsel that there were two penalties provided in Section 14 and the Board should have applied its mind of the fact that the lessor penalty would have met the ends of justice. It may be observed that the case of a transfer, by way of sale of tenancy rights by a person to whom such rights were given on concessional basis and by affording priority in the matter of allotment and on reserve price, which was payable in 15 annual instalments does not deserve any favourable consideration because the ex-jagirdars, to whom such allotments were made, tried to make a fortune out of such allotment of land made in their favour with a view to rehabilitate them, by encashing the grants so made and transferred the lands without seeking prior permission of the Collector, which clearly shows that a serious breach of law has been committed by the ex-jagirdars in parting with such lands. Whether the allotments of such lands should be cancelled or a penalty of fine should be imposed, was a matter which entirely rested upon the discretion of the Collector and after he exercised his discretion, the Board of Revenue had another opportunity to consider the question. After the concerned authorities have applied their minds and have properly exercised the discretion vested in them, it is not for this Court sitting in certiorari jurisdiction to consider as to which of the two parties specified in Section 14 should have been imposed upon the ex-jagirdars. The argument of the learned counsel that the Collector did not apply his mind is not sound as it is apparent from a perusal of his order that he thought the breach to be serious and that the imposition of the severe penalty was considered more proper. This view was also taken by the Division Bench of this court in Tirath Das's case referred to above.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these writ petitions and all the 14 writ petitions are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.


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