LexAZIZUDDIN versus BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A AZIZUDDIN v. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS. FEBRUARY 12, 1999 B [D.P. WADHWA AND AP. MISRA, )J.] Tenancy and Land Laws : Bhopal State Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of C Kans) Ac~ 1954: Section 17-Validity of-Tractorization charges (for eradication of the weed kans )-Non-payment of-Attachment of land due to-Recovery of trac- torization charges against the landowner under the 1949 Ordinance were concluded through proceedings under the 1932 Act and land declared as D Taluqdeh (unoccupied land) before the coming into force of the 1954 Act-Held, the landowner cannot derive any benefit from the Supreme Cowt's judgment in Champalal's case which declared Tractorization charges as ultra vires-This is more so as S. 17 of the 1954 Act declaring all actions taken before the coming into force of the 1954 Act is not held ultra vires or E invalid-Bhopal State Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of Kans) Ordinance, 1949-Bhopal Land Revenue Ac~ 1932. General Principles-Relief-Grant of-To joint Khata holders-Held, all joint Khata holder must apply for relief-Hence, one individual Khata F holder not entitled to relief. General Clauses Act (Bhopal), 1931 : Section 2(12) (as amended in 1933 r/w Government Notification No. 71 dated 25.2.1941). Land-Re-allotment-Preferential right of-Dispossessed land- G owner-Notification No. 71-Held, notification issued by Government and not by Ruler himself has the force of law under amended S. 2( 12)7However, Notification No. 71 is applicable only to dispossessed landowners-Hence, a landowner who is never physically dispossessed not entitled to claim preferential right of re-allotment-High Court rightly dismissed landowner's H claim of preferential right of re-allotment though for different reasons. 618 AZIZUDDIN v. BOARD OF REVENUE [MISRA, J.] 619 ~ Practice and Procedure. A Remand-High Court had not gone into some points though raisetJ-£ffect of-Held, nonnally case ought to be remanded for considera- ti on of those points-However, where the case has been pending for a longtime and all findings were on record, and parties are agreeable, those B points can be disposed of by Supreme Court itself. ~. The appellant possessed a joint Khata in respect of land and held + the said land jointly along with four others. The land belonging to the appellant was declared as kans invested by a Government Notification issued under the Bhopal State Reclamation and Department of Lands c (Eradication of Kans) Ordinance, 1949 which was replaced by the Bhopal State Reclamation and Development of Land (Eradication of Kans) Act, 1954. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice to the appellant demand- ing tractorization charges (for eradication of the weed kans). The appellant's land in joint Khata was declared Taluqdeh (Unoccupied) and D eviction order was passed against the appellant due to non-payment of the _;, aforesaid tractorization charges. However, the Chief Commissioner declared the recovery of trac- torization charges as ultra vires. The State Government filed an appeal before this Court against the aforesaid judgment. Thereafter, the appellant E filed an application before the Tehsildar that no action should be taken against him till this Court settl~d the validity of the tractorization charges. Alternatively, the appellant claimed under a Government Notifica- tion/Proclamation No. 71 dated 25.2.1941 issued under the Bhopal Land Revenue Act, 1932 for a preferential right for re-allotment of his land, which was declared Taluqdeh. F The Additional Commissioner held that the aforesaid Notifica- tion/Proclamation No. 71 was only an executive under declaring the inten- ti on of the Ruler of the erstwhile Princely State of Bhopal to give preference to the dispossessed holders of land and did .not hayii the force of law. It G was further held that since the appellant was never physically dispossessed - he was not entitled for the relief even in terms of the said proclamation. -t· In the meanwhile, this Court in Champalal's CQSe 'held the recovery of tractorization charges both under the 1949 Ordinance and the 1954 Act to be ultra vires. However, Section 17 of the Act declaring all actions taken H 620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A before the coming into force of the 1954 Act as lawful and valid was not found to be ultra vires or invalid. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.