DEEP versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 15-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DEEP A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 15, 1995 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Tenancy & Land Laws-Rajasthan Land Refomis and Resumption bf 
Jagirs Act, 1952-Section 10-Khatedar tenant-Name of appellant recorded 
C as cultivato,-Land could not be regarded as khudkasht of jagirdar. 
The respondent sought eviction of the appellant by invoking section 
177 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, on the ground that the latter had 
become liable for ejectment becanse of using the land contrary to the 
purpose for which it.was leased. The suit was dismissed on the ground that 
D the land being part of jagir, the respondent had no locus standi to file the 
suit, as jagir stood abolished by the force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms 
and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. That order passed in 1963 was 
confirmed by the Board of Revenue on 19.1.1978. The respondent filed an 
application u/s 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for making a 
reference to the Board of Revenue to recommend making of entry in the 
E record of rights relating to the self same land in favour of an Idol, the 
respondent being its Pujari. The application was allowed. The Board of 
Revenue did not accept the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant and 
held that the appellant's right was not heritable and transferable. The 
High Court also dismissed appellant's appeal. Hence this appeal under 
F Art. 136 of the Constitution. 
The appellant contended 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; that Khasra Girdawari 
showed that the name of the appellant had been recorded as cultivator 
G 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; that 
the veiw taken by the authorities was not correct also because of the 
provisions in Chapter III-A of the Tenancy Act under which even a sub· 
H tenant of khudkasht land becomes a khatedar tenant on the required 
780 
DEEPAv. STATE[HANSARIA,J.j 
781 
procedure being followed, which must be deemed to have been satisfied A 
because of what bas been recorded in the kbasra Girdawari. 
The respondent submitted that though the land was shown in the 
kbasra Girdawari under appellant's cultivation, that was not as a tenant 
but as an employee of the respoµdent; 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : The respondent himself having accepted the appellant as a 
tenant when proceeding under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was initiated 
against him, had lost that right when the respondent agitated the matter C 
again under section 82 of the Rajastban Land Revenue Act, 1956. It was 
the appellant who had to be accepted as a tenant and a khatedar tenant 
at that and so, the revenue record could not have been corrected to show 
the respondent as the khatedar tenant (781-G, 783-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5523 of D 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.94 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 6735 of 1992. 
B.D. Sharma for the Appellants. 
K.S. Bhati for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
HANSARIA, J. The appellant, who was once accepted by respondent F 
No. 5-Ram Chandra (hereinafter the respondent), as a tenant when 
proceeding under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Tenancy Act) was in-
itiated 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 G 
founded as it would appear from what is being stated later. 
2. In 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 H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995J SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A suit on the ground that the land being part of jagir he had no locus standi 
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. 
B 
3. Tn 1987 the respondent filed an application befor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.