STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus AANJANEY ORGANIC HERBAL PVT. LTD

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 1148 · Decided: 20-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012] 7 S.C.R. 1148 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
v 
AANJANEY ORGANIC HERBAL PVT. LTD 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6741-6742 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: 
c 
s.42(b) - Beneficial legislation to protect the interest of the 
members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe - General 
restrictions on sale, gift and bequest of the interest of 
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, in the whole or part 
of their holding - Object and effect of - Held: The reason for 
0 such general restrictions is not only to safeguard the interest 
of the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, 
but also to see that they are not being exploited by the 
members of non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe -
However, at times, s.42(b) may go against the interest of the 
members of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe as well -
E There may be several situations where they intend to sell the 
property for purposes like marriage of son/daughter or to 
purchase a better property etc., but may not get a better 
competitive price, if the sale is made only among the 
members of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe - Provisions 
F have been made in certain legislations enabling the 
members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe to sell 
their lands to members of non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 
Tribe, on getting permission from the prescribed authority -
Such a provision may be sometimes helpful to the members 
G of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe to get a better price 
for their land bur it is for the legislature to incorporate 
appropriate provision in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 
s.42(b) - Transfer of land from a member of Scheduled 
H 
1148 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. AANJANEY ORGANIC 1149 
HERBAL PVT. LTD. 
Caste to a juristic person, other than Scheduled Caste -
A 
Validity - Expression 'person' used in s.42(b) - Meaning of -
Property purchased by respondent-private company from 
members of Scheduled Caste - Challenged as void, in view 
of s.42(b) - High Court held that respondent-private company 
being a juristic person, the sale effected by a member of B 
Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, which does not have a 
caste, is not hit by s. 42 - Held: The reasoning of the High 
Court is untenable and gives a wrong interpretation to the 
provision - The expression 'person' used in s.42(b) can only 
be a natural person and not a juristic person, otherwise, the C 
entire purpose of that section will be defeated - The legislature 
clearly wanted to avoid a situation where respondent-company 
can purchase land from Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe 
and then sell it to a non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled 
Tribe - A thing which cannot be done directly cannot be done o 
tndirectly over-reaching the statutory restriction - The property 
purchased by respondent from the members of Scheduled 
Caste was void being hit by s.42(b) and was thus rightly denied 
mutation in the Revenue records - The State can, therefore, 
re-possess the lands and return the lands to the original E 
owners who are members of the Scheduled Caste - General 
Clauses Act, 1897 - s.3(42) - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 341 and 342. 
The respondent is a private limited company. It 
purchased land belonging to the members of Scheduled 
F 
Caste vide a registered sale deed dated 26.9.2005. An 
application was preferred by the respondent before the 
Revenue Authorities for mutation of the property. The 
same was refused on basis of a circular dated 19.11.2005, 
which stated that mutation could be effected only if the G 
transfer was between the members of Scheduled Caste/ 
Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. Since the 
application for mutation was refused, the respondent filed 
Writ Petition which was allowed by a single Judge. 
H 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal 
before the Division Bench which was dismissed., 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal was whether the transfer of land from a 
member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, other 
8 than Scheduled Caste, is void, in view of the provisions 
of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 
The respondent-company pleaded that the 
expression 'person', as such, is not defined in the 
C Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and, therefore, one has to 
go by the definition of 'person' under the General 
Clauses Act, 1987, and, if so read along with Section 3(42) 
of

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