Allowed

Teena Real Estate Private Limited v. Government of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 May 2023CW/773/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered a challenge to the denial of plot registration by the State Registration Department. The order was quashed, directing the authorities to register the plot as the land belonged to a general category person and the transaction involved no violation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.1.2023 quashed; respondents directed to register plot No. 18 in the name of the buyer strictly in accordance with law.

Teena Real Estate Private Limited Vs Government… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 773/2023

¶3

Teena Real Estate Private Limited, Through Director Prabhu Lal S/o Lakhma Ji Meghwal, Age About 53 Years, 3 - Ubeshwer Ji Road, Gorella, Post - Sisarama, Tehsil Girwa, District - Udaipur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Government Of Rajasthan, Registration And Stamps Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶7

Additional Administrative Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Finance (Tax) Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

Office Of Inspector General, Registration And Stamps Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶9

Office Of District Registrar Udaipur, Through District Registrar, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

¶10

Sub-Registrar, Office Of Sub-Registrar, First, Udaipur, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

¶11

The Collector Stamps / Additional Inspector General, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akshiti Singhvi

¶14

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

REPORTABLE

25/05/2023

The petitioner is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956 on 25.10.2004. The petitioner-Company purchased an agricultural land situated in village- Gorella, Patwar KhetraSisarama, Bhoo Abhilekh Nirakshak Khetra Nai Tehsil- Girwa, District Udaipur (bearing Aarji No. 49 (New) and 24 (Old), Khasra

¶19

(2 of 6) [CW-773/2023]

¶20

No. 924/724, 926/725, 927/735, 736 total Kita four, ad measuring 0.4100 hectare) vide registered sale deed on 01.3.2005 while making payment of Rs. 5,50,000/-.

¶21

The petitioner-Company developed the land in question and sold plot No. 18 to one Mayakumari Acharya vide sale letter dated 06.12.2022.

¶22

The petitioner filed an application before District Collector, Stamp/Addl. Inspector General Registrar, Udaipur (Rajasthan) and requested for registration of plot No. 18 ad measuring about 565 Sq. Feet. The registration was denied on count of annexure/5, vide impugned order dated 04.1.2023, but the registration of the plot was not permitted because it was assumed to be a violation of Sections 42(b), 46(a) & 49(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, on count of the khatedar being a person belonging to SC Category. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that though the Director of the company belongs to SC category but the land has been purchased from the non restricted category/non SC/ST category person. The District Registrar, Udaipur vide on 04.1.2023 in appeal No. 05/2022 has rejected the prayer of registration.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards annexure/2 which shows that the land in question has been purchased from one Nand Kumar who had got the land from Narayan Gurjar as reflected in the documents. Thus, the outcome of the factual matrix is that the land belonging to general category is being transferred to another general category with the petitioner company being a mediator.

¶24

(3 of 6) [CW-773/2023]

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure/5 dated 3.12.2021 which is a circular of the State which clarifies that even if a Company is formed by the person belonging to SC/ST Category, such company shall be entitled to enter in any agreement/transaction with person belonging to the general category, in relation to his khatedari land but cannot be in transaction with land belonging SC/ST person. The relevant portion of the circular dated 03.12.2021 is reproduced as under: -

¶26

“jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e &1955 ds mDr izko/kkuksa dk

¶27

ewy m)s'; vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDr;ksa ds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh j{kk djuk gSA fdlh vuqwlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDr;ksa }kjk xfBr dksbZ laLFkk] VªLV] dEiuh vkfn Hkh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDr;ksa dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs gSA vr% ,slh laLFkkvksa] VªLV] dEifu;ksa vkfn }kjk Hkh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDr ls mldh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe ds lac/k esa vUrj.k] fofue; bR;kfn ugha djk;k tk ldrkA lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gSA ”

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents however, opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but is unable to refute that the land in question has emanated from the person of general caste and not from SC/ST category person and thus valid transaction is in existence.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the Director of the Company is a person belonging to SC, therefore, the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 Section 42-B will operate.

¶30

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that Section 42 of

¶31

[CW-773/2023]

¶32

(4 of 6)

¶33

the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is meant to protect the land belonging to SC/ST category of citizens but at the same time the same cannot be expanded to the extent that the person belonging to general caste who in the present case was the seller to the Company which incidentally is having Director as a SC person would not be able to enter into any transaction pertaining to a Khatedari land belonging to a person of general category. Section

¶34

42 and 42 B reads as follows:-

¶35

42. General restrictions on sale, gift and bequest – The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenants of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void, if-

¶36

(a) Omitted.

¶37

(b) such sale, gift or bequest by a number of Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Trive in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe.

¶38

(bb) such sale, gift or bequest, notwithstanding anything contained in caluse (b), is by a member of Saharia Scheduled Tribe in faovur of a person who is not a member of the said Saharia Tribe.

¶39

Section 42-B Declaration as valid of sale, gift and bequest – Where any sale, agift or holding before the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 Act No. 22 of 1992 was void on account of contravention of any of the provisions of clause (a) of Section 42, as it stood before the said amendment Act of 1992, such sale, gift or bequest may be declared to be valid by the Collector or any officer or authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf on an application made to him or it within such time and in such manner and on payment of such fee and penalty as may be prescribed:

Provided that -

(5 of 6)

[CW-773/2023]

(a) such sale, gift or a bequest was otherwise legally valid and in conformity with the provisions of the laws for the time being in force except those contained in clause (a) of Section 42 as aforesaid:

¶44

(b) the parties to the sale, or bequest comply with all the terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the rules of by any special or general order;

¶45

(c) the payment is made of such premium or penalty as may be prescribed;

¶46

(d) the applicant undertakes to pay urban assessment levied at such rate and in accordance with such manner as may be prescribed

¶47

Moreover, this Court finds that the State itself has clarified the position by its circular dated 3.12.2021 as quoted above whereby it is made clear that any Institution, Trust, Company etc. where even if office bearers are SC/ST will not come in the category SC/ST so as to enable such an organization to enter into any transaction pertaining to a khatedari land of a person not belonging to SC/ST category. Thus, it is clear that since it is a undisputed fact that the land title emanating from a general category person and was purchased from a general category person and sold to a general category person, the role of the Company is merely as that of a facilitator and thus, when the title of the land is not belonging to SC/ST person and it is only incidental that the Director of the petitioner-Company is a person belonging to SC category, the same cannot be held to be bar as per rigour of Section 42-B and Section 46A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

¶48

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated

¶49

(6 of 6) [CW-773/2023]

¶50

04.1.2023 (Annexure/7) the respondents are directed to register the plot No. 18 in the name of buyer strictly in accordance with law, while not denying the same, on count of prohibition under Sections 42-B and 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

¶51

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶52

ns. 49-1/-

Teena Real Estate Private Limited v. Government of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teena Real Estate Private Limited v. Government of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohin Choudhary Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Rakeshnath Vs State of Rajasthan

Apex Institute of Ayurveda Sciences, Jaipur Vs State of Rajasthan

Tilok Vs Union of India

Dinesh Kumar Vs the Registrar, Dr. S.R. Rajasthan Ayurved University

Patni Meman Mahammad Ajeem Vs the Registrar