LexJAILA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
428
A
JAILA SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
May 2, 1975
B
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, p. N. BHAGWATI AND P. K. GOSWAMI JJ.J
c
D
E
F
G
H
Raiasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Cuna{ Proiect Pre-1955 Ten1porary Temonrs
<Tovernnient Lo.nd Allot1nent) Conditions, 1971, Condition No. 3, and Raja.<;t/1an
Colonisation (Allotment of Governn1e11t Land to Post-1955 Te1nporary Cultiva-
tion Lease Holders and other landless persons in the Rajasthan G'anal Project
Area}_ Rules, 1971, Rules 2(1)(xiii) and 3(2)-Pennanent al!ot111cnt of land
to tenants-Pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants, if forn1 different classcs-Sectior..• 15
and 15-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, if pro1,ide any basis for classifica1iv11.
Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, Sections 7 and 28-Scope of.
The Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakra Project Governn1ent Land Allotment
and Sale) llulcs, 1955 made under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation
Act, 1954, came into effect on 25th December, 1955.
Under these Rules th<.:
difference 1...-etween pre-1947 and post-1947 tenants is negligible.
Under
~he
Raja<;than Colonisation (Gang Can:tl Lands Pcmanent Allotment and Sales}
H.ules, 1956, the scale of allotment is uniform without any discri111ination bet-
ween various classes of persons to ¥.·ho1n lanU may be allotted.
Under th~
Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Can<-ll Project Government Land Allot.ral:n!
and Sale) Rules, 1967 all post-1955 temporary cultivation leases in the Colony
Area were terminated nnd all the lands covered by such leases reverted tu
the Government.
Jaila Singh, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 1974 was alloUeJ
50 bighas of 'uncommand land' in the yeal's l 956-57 and 1957-58 in the Ganga-
nagar District of the Rajasthan State.
~fhe area in \Vhich the hind is situated
was declared a Colonv .l\rea of the Rajasthan Canal Project under the Rajasthan
Colonisation Act in 1960. Jn 1967 the Rajas.than Canal Colonisation (Rajastha11
Canal Project Government Land J\llotment and Sale) Rules. 1967 \Vere pro-
rnulgat<.Ai and applications were invited for allotn1cnt of land under those rules.
JaUa Singh's application for allotment was disposed of on 27-12-1969 by allotting:
14 bighas and 14 biswas of land on permanent basis.
Jn State v. Ranu!han.
A.i.R. 1973 Raj. 71, the latter part of Rule 16 and Rule 19(a) (iii) read with
Hulc 7(x) and (xi) of the 1967 Rules \Vere struck down.
They were struck
do\.vn on the ground that both the Rhakra Canal Project Rules and the Rnjasthti-n
Canal Rules framed under the Act. had treated the unit of family differently
and cannot therefore be justified. Thereafter two sets of rules called respectively
F.aja.<;than Colonisation (Rajasth;:n Canal Project Pre-1955 Temporary Tenants
(lovernmcnt Land Allotment) Conditions, 1971 and the Rajasthan Colonisation
(Allotment of Governn1cnt Land to Post-1955 Temporary Cultivation Leas~
Holders arid Other Landless Persons in the-
Raja~than Canal Project Area)
F,ules. 1971 were promulgated.
Applications were again invited for a1lotment
cf land under the Po"t-1955 Rules and Jaila Singh \Vas allotted another 10
bighas of land. The rest of the land originally allotted to him reverted to the
State.
He filed a v,.Tit petition before the Rajasthan High Court cha11cnging
the Pvst-1955 Rules as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Sahi Ram, the .husband of the appel1ant in Civil Appeal No. 1705 of 1974,
bad been allotted 24! bighas of land for ten1porary cultivation in Rajasthan
Canal Area in Ganganagar District.
He had also been allotted 12! bighas
'command
land'
in
the
rear 1952
on
a permanent
basis
and
6
bighas
and
12
biswas
of
'command
land"
and 4
bighas
and
11
biswas of
'uncommand
land'
for
permanent
cultivation.
These lands
1vcrc. included in the Colony Area of the Rajasthan Canal Project in 1960.
'
•
i
•
) ,
.,
,
JAJLA SINGH v. RAJASTUAN (Alagiriswami, !.)
After the po>t-1955 Rule come into force
the 24!
bighao of
land
was
ordered to be resumed on the ground that Sahl Ram was not a landless
person. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, the order of resumption was
challenged as discriminatory.
.
In both the writ pertitions the contention on behalf of the State of Rajaathan
was that, owing to the insertion of s. 15A in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955
Khatedari rights could not accrue to the tenants under s. 15 ( 1) of the said
Acl and 'the possession of such tenanExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.