LexRAM KARAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 977 RAM KARAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5853 of 2014) JUNE 30, 2014. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: s.42, proviso - Transfer of land - Suit land sold to appef/ants-vendees in 1962 and C mutated in 1966 - After 31 years, Tehsildar instituted a case uls. 175 of the Act seeking ejectment of the vendees on the ground that sale was void being in contravention of s. 42 since the vendors belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and vendees belonged to an upper caste - Cancellation of D mutation - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - No doubt, there is clear prohibition in making sale by a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in favour of person who is not. member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes after 22.09.1956 - However, no action was taken either by vendor E or by State for more than 31 years - As per Schedule 3 rlw s.214 of the Act the limitation for filing a suit for any illegal transfer was 30 years - Suit was filed by Tehsi/dar after about 31 years - In the said suit for the first time an application was filed for appointment of receiver - The said application was F rejected by the Assistant Collector holding that the vendee has been in possession and cultivating the suit land for 32 years - No ground was shown to file sU'Ch petition after long delay nor it was mentioned as to whether the vendors i.e. original landholders made any application for restoration of land in G their favour -Suit being filed beyond the reasonable period was rightly dismissed as time-barred - Limitation Act, 1963 - Delayllaches. 977 H 978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The proviso added to Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by second Amendment Act No. 28 of 1956 prohibits any transfer of interest in holding 8 by a Member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to any person who was not a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The vendor executed the sale deed in favour of the vendee, predecessor in interest of the appellant on 12.01.1962. The sale being forbidden by law and being opposed to public policy within the C meaning of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, it was 1:1ot enforceable by law in view of proviso to Section 42. Section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872 also provides that an D · agreement which is not enforceable by law is said to be void. [Para 24] [987-B-E] Triveni Shyam Sharma v. Board of Revenue & Ors. AIR 1965 Raj.54 - referred to. 2.As per Schedule 3 read with Section 214 of the Act; E the limitation for filing a suit for any illegal transfer was 30 years. It was after about 31 years, on 6.07.1993 the suit was filed by the Tehsildar. In the said suit for the first time an application was filed for appointment of receiver. The said application was rejected by the Assistant Collector F holding that the vendee has been in possession and cultivating the suit land for 32 years. If no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. No ground is shown to file such petition after long delay nor it was mentioned as to whether the vendors i.e. original G · landholders made any application for resto~ation of land in their favour. The suit being filed beyond the reasonable period was fit to be dismissed. The Additional Collector rightly dismissed the suit being barred by limitation. [Paras 33, 36,38 and 39] [992-B, 994-E-F; 995-A-B, D] H RAM KARAN (DEA~JHROUGH LRS. v. STATE OF 979 . RAJASTHAN State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative. Milk A Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363: 2007 (11) SCR 14 • relied on. · · Case Law Reference : AIR 1965 Raj.54 c200411~ sec 585 2007 (11) SCR 14 Referred to Referred to Relied on Para 26 Para 34 Para 35 B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. C 5853 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2012 in CWP No, 639/1996, SA No.557/2002 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. Sushil Kumar Jain, Chhaya Kirti, Navdeep, Pratibha Jain, for the appellants. D S.S Shamshery AAG., Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh,Narun Punia, Ajay Choudhary, Ankit E R. Kothari Ajay Singh, Reepak Kansai, Milind Kumar for the respondents. J The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MU
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.