Allowed

State of Raj. v. Lrs of Vishan Singh

Rajasthan HC11 May 2023CW/2686/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the State's writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's judgment allowing a respondents appeal in ceiling land proceedings. The court refused to reopen proceedings due to limitation expiry and upheld the validity of an inter-vivos gift deed executed before the statutory cut-off date under Section 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, relying on the Supreme Court's decisi

What did the court decide?

Prayers for quashing the Board of Revenue's judgment and dismissal of the respondents' appeal allowed.

State of Raj. Vs Lrs of Vishan Singh — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/014831]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2686/2007

¶4

The State of Rajasthan through the Sub Divisional Officer, Sumerpur, District Pali.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Legal Representatives of Vishan Singh S/o Shri Ajit Singh:-

¶8

Takhat Singh S/o Shri Vishan Singh.

¶9

Shyam Singh S/o Shri Vishan Singh.

¶10

Amar Singh S/o Shri Vishan Singh.

¶11

Jabar Singh S/o Shri Vishan Singh.

¶12

Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Vishan Singh.

¶13

Smt. Sabik Kanwar @ Smt. Sayar Kanwar W/o Shri Vishan Singh.

¶14

All by caste Rajput, residents of Hingoli, Tehsil Bali, district Pali. 7. Smt. Paras Kanwar D/o Shri Vishan Singh, W/o Shri Jabar Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o Solata, village Kailash Nagar, district Sirohi.

¶15

Dashrath Snigh S/o Mohan Kanwar.

¶16

Karan Devara S/o Mohan Kanwar.

¶17

Abhay Singh Devara S/o Mohan Kanwar.

¶18

Junjar Singh S/o Mohan Kanwar, by caste Rajput, R/o Sabrata, district Sirohi.

¶19

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, at Ajmer.

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. R.D. Bhadu
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Abhinav Jain
	Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore

¶22

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶23

Order

¶24

11/05/2023

¶25

1 . The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

(2 of 8)

[2023/RJJD/014831]

[CW-2686/2007]

“1. The impugned judgment dated 02.09.2003 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Board of Revenue in Appeal No.32/89/Appeal/Ceiling/Pali may kindly be quashed and set aside with all its natural consequences;

¶30

2. The appeal preferred by the respondents before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer may kindly ordered to be dismissed with all its natural consequences;

¶31

3. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

¶32

2 . Brief facts of the case are that:-

¶33

The ceiling proceedings under the old ceiling law, were initiated against the respondent Shri Vishan Singh (since deceased) in the case bearing No.241/70, which came to be decided by the judgment dated 19.12.1970, wherein, the land was not found to be in excess of permitted land in favour of respondents. Vide order dated 09.08.1979, ceiling proceedings were ordered to be reopened by the Government of Rajasthan under the new ceiling law.

¶34

3 . The Additional Collector, Pali, vide its judgment dated 13.01.1983, found, that the land was in excess of the standard limit and 39.25 bighas of land was ordered to be resumed in favour of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned Board of revenue which was rejected by the judgment dated 27.03.1989 to which, the respondents preferred a writ petition, which was allowed vide order dated 05.05.1999 and the matter was remanded back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the matter afresh.

[2023/RJJD/014831]

[CW-2686/2007]

(3 of 8)

4 . The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide its judgment dated 02.09.2003, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment passed by th Additional Collector, Pali by stating that the assessee Late Shri Vishan Singh was not holding excess land on the said date.

¶39

5 . Being aggrieved of the order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure4), passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

¶40

6 . Shri R.D. Bhadu, learned counsel representing the petitionerState, submitted that:-

¶41

(a) The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, has passed the order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-4) in an invalid, erroneous and in a lackadaisical manner and so also, the said order is contrary to the well settled principle of law.

¶42

(b) The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, has committed a grave error by not appreciating the facts correctly for determination of the ceiling area. The computation of the land in question for the purpose of the ceiling is required to be made in both; under the New Ceiling Act as well as under the Old Ceiling Act and thereafter, it can be found as to whether, the ceiling area determined under the New Ceiling Act, exceeds the ceiling area under the Old Ceiling Act or not, and in the absence of such computation under both the Act, the matter could not have been disposed of.

¶43

7 . He draws the attention of this Court towards the main ground of the writ petition and the contentions which were put before the Revenue Board, which are as follows:-

¶44

“Whether the land transferred by assessee Vishan Singh in favor of minor sons and daughters by gift deed dated

[2023/RJJD/014831]

[CW-2686/2007]

(4 of 8)

23.06.1959, would be a valid transfer as per the Section 30DD and whether the transferee are required to have attained age of majority at the date of gift deed executed in their favour i.e. 23.06.1959 or attaining majority at the cutoff date provided under Section 30 DD i.e. 01.12.1969 would be valid?”

¶49

8 . The Revenue Board, while allowing the appeal of the respondents came to a conclusion that a gift deed can be executed in favour of minor and only at the cut-off dated 01.12.1969 it has to be seen that the transferee attained majority or not.

¶50

9 . In the present case, as the land in question was gifted in favour of a minor person the said transfer cannot be said to be a valid transfer and hence, the said gift deed was only executed to avoid the purview of ceiling law and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as property cannot be gifted in favour of minor for agriculture purposes and hence the finding arrived by the Board of Revenue that even though at the time of gift deed, the transferee was minor but later attained the age of majority, cannot be said to be valid in law.

¶51

10 . He, thus, urged, that the impugned order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the respondents before the leaned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, may kindly be dismissed.

¶52

11 . Per contra, learned counsel Shri Abhinav Jain and Shri Shambhoo Singh Rathore, representing the respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and made following submissions:-

[2023/RJJD/014831]

[CW-2686/2007]

(5 of 8)

(a) That re-opening of the Ceiling case was beyond the period of limitation. They, thus, drawn the Court’s attention to Section 15 read with sub-Section (1) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Act, 1973, which reads as follows:-

¶57

“Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of 5 years from the date of the final order sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of 30.06.1979, whichever is later.”

¶58

In this regard, they submitted that the old ceiling proceedings came to be closed on 19.12.1970, holding that Shri Vishan Singh (since deceased) was not having land in excess of Ceiling Area. The State Government vide its order dated 09.08.1979, directed to re-open the ceiling proceedings under the New Ceiling Law. Thus, as per the proviso the ceiling proceedings were neither re-opened i.e. 19.12.1970, nor the proceedings were re-opened before 30.06.1979. The proceedings were re-opened only on 09.08.1979, i.e. more than two months after the expiry of the cut-off date.

¶59

12 . Learned counsel representing the respondents further submits that Chapter-III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 provides for restriction on holding land in excess of Ceiling Area. Setion 30C of the Act provides for a family consisting of 5 or less members the ceiling area shall be 30 Standard Acres. Where members of a family exceed five, the ceiling area shall be increased by 5 standard acres for each additional member, but not in excess of 60 standard acres in total.

¶60

13 . Section 30DD(i) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is applicable in the present case. As the provision of this Section

[2023/RJJD/014831]

[CW-2686/2007]

(6 of 8)

starts with a non-obstante clause and provides notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 30D. Every transfer of land not exceeding thirty standar Acres made by a person upto 31.12.1969 in favour of his son and capable of cultivating land personally and take to the profession of agriculture and who had attained the age of maturity on or before 31.12.1969.

¶65

14 . Admittedly, the transfer was made by Shri Vishan Singh during his lifetime i.e. 23.06.1959 in favour of his children and the provisions of Section 30DD provides a safeguard to transfers made upto 31.12.1969. Furthermore, the provision provides that such transferee should attain the age of majority on or before 31.12.1969 which is the cut-off date. Therefor, the authorities were required to determine the holdings under the new act of Shri Vishan Singh after the cut-off date i.e. 31.12.1969, whether he was having land in excess of ceiling area after making transfer in favour of his sons and daughters.

¶66

15 . Learned counsel representing the parties placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Daulat Singh (D) thorough LRs Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in [ (2021) 3 SCC 459 ], submitting that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by it. Relevant portions of which, are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-

¶67

“46. Lastly, it must be taken into consideration that, the aforesaid transfer was executed way before the cut-off date stipulated under Section 30DD i.e. 31.12.1969. Therefore, the registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 was a bonafide transfer squarely covered within the ambits of Section

[2023/RJJD/014831]

[CW-2686/2007]

(7 of 8)

30DD, which intended to protect the rights of

¶72

agriculturalists. Issue no. 3, stands answered in favour of the appellant, as the transfer is not invalid as it stands protected as per the provision of Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955.

¶73

47. In light of the aforesaid findings, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside. The transfer of the land being valid under Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955, the ceiling area of the appellant falls within the ceiling limit as provided under Section 30C.

¶74

48. There is no gainsaying that Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 also does not advance the case of the State. Firstly, the repeal of Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act of 1955 through Section 40 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 is not retrospective. Hence, the provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973 are not attracted in the present case as the case was re-opened and decided under the provisions of the of Tenancy Act of 1955. Secondly, Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 declares that every transfer of land including by way of gift, made on or after 26-09-1970 and before 01-011973, shall be deemed to have been made to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973. In the instant case, the gift deed was executed on 19-12-1963, that is much before 26-09-1970. Therefore also, Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 does not affect the transfer of land by the appellant- donor in favour of the donee-son. Thirdly, there

(8 of 8)

[2023/RJJD/014831]

[CW-2686/2007]

is no finding that the gift deed in the present case was actuated upon any extraneous consideration. Hence, it constitutes a bonafide transfer which are exempted from the rigors of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.”

¶79

16 . In light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Daulat Singh (D) thorough LRs (supra) , the instant writ petition is also disposed of.

¶80

17 . All other pending applications are also disposed of.

¶81

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶82

34-/Devesh-

State of Raj. v. Lrs of Vishan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. v. Lrs of Vishan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Lal Vs Lrs of Ramrakh and Anr.

Yashwardhan Singh and Ors. Vs Lokpal Singh and Ors.

Gopal Singh Bhadu Vs State of Rajasthan

Bindu Kalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Singh Vs State Information Commission

Lrs of Kishan Gurjar S/O Lalu Ram Vs Smt. Meena Gurjar