Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors  INSC 854 (15 December 1995)
B.L. (J) Hansaria B.L. (J) Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria, J.
1996 SCC (1) 612 JT 1995 (9) 173 1995 SCALE (7)253
appellant, who was once accepted by respondent No. 5-Ram Chandra (hereinafter
the respondent), as a tenant when proceeding under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955
(Tenancy Act) was initiated against him, has lost that right when the
respondent agitated the matter again under section 82 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956. Shortly put, this is the grievance of the appellant, and the
same is well founded as it would appear from what is being stated later.
the first proceeding, the respondent had sought eviction of the appellant by
invoking section 177 of the Tenancy Act on the ground that the latter had
become liable for ejectment because of using the land contrary to the purpose
for which it was leased. The respondent lost that suit on the ground that the
land being part of jagir he had no locus stand to file the suit, as jagir stood
abolished by the force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs
Act, 1952 (Jagir Act). That order was passed on 30.6.1963 and was confirmed
even by the Board of Revenue on 19.1.1978.
1987 the respondent filed an application before the Collector under section 82
of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for making a reference to the Board of
Revenue to recommend making of entry in the record of rights relating to the
self-same land in favour of Idol Shri Charbhujaji - the respondent being its Pujari.
The appellant contended, inter alia, that the matter could not be re-opened in
view of the earlier proceeding and, in any case, he having become a khatedar
tenant under provisions of the Tenancy Act, the record of rights could not be
corrected to show the respondent as a khatedar tenant. The Board of Revenue did
not accept the plea of res judicata and having taken a view that the
appellant's right was not heritable and transferable, granted prayer of the respondent.
On the High Court being approached by the appellant, he did not get any relief,
inter alia, because he had not filed Khasra Girdawari relating to Sambat 2012
(1957 A.D.) by which year Tenancy Act had come into force. Hence this appeal
under 136 of the Constitution.
Sharma, appearing for the appellant, contended, and rightly, that respondent
himself having accepted the appellant as tenant in the first proceeding, a
stand different from that could not be taken in the present proceeding. He then
urged that Khasra Girdawari, which has now been put on record, clearly shows
that the name of the appellant had been recorded as cultivator by Sambat 2012,
because of which the land could not be regarded as khudkasht of the jagirdar
which would make section 10 of the Jagirs Act inoperative, and so, the
respondent's name could not be recorded as khatedar tenant. As to this
submission, the learned counsel for this respondent submitted that though the
land was shown in the Khasra Girdawari under appellant's cultivation, that was
not as a tenant but as an employee of the respondent. This stand is untenable
because from the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue in the present
proceeding it appears that the case of this respondent was that Deepa's father had
been given the land for cultivation on "Panti Basis", that is, on
share basis, which would clearly show that the land was tenanted to Deepa's
father and in lieu of cash he was to pay in kind.
Sharma's further contention is that the view taken by the authorities is not
correct also because of the provisions in Chapter III_A of the Tenancy Act,
under which even a sub-tenant of khudkasht land becomes a khatedar tenant on
the required procedure being followed, which must be deemed to have been satisfied
because of what has been recorded in the Khasra Girdawari. Now, if a person
becomes a khatedar tenant, then by the force of section 9 of the Jagirs Act,
his right becomes heritable and fully transferable; and so, the contrary view
taken by the authorities is not correct. Still another weapon in the armoury of
Shri Sharma is that under section 13 of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949,
(regarding the applicability of which Shri Medh has some objection) the
interest of a tenant is heritable but is not transferable otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of that Act.
are satisfied (even if what has been stated in section 13 of the Marwar Tenancy
Act is kept out of consideration) that it is the appellant who has to be
accepted as a tenant and a khatedar tenant at that; and so, the revenue
reorders could not have been corrected to snow the respondent as the khatedar
appeal is, therefore, allowed with cost by declaring the appellant as the khatedar
tenant of the land in question.