TEJ SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 10-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

< 
' 
--'• 
_J 
. ...j· 
j 
TEJ SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Colonisation (Medium & Minor lnigation Projects Govern-
ment Lands Allotment) Rules,196/J--Rule 3(Vl-A) and Rule 17-A-Land-
Allotment of-Concealment of fact while making application-Held Rule 17-
A 
B 
A though not retrospective yet when assignment is obtained by fraud the same C 
is vitiated-Cancellation held valid-Section 23 of the Rajasthan General 
Clauses Act, 1889 held applicable-However direction given not to dispos-
sess-Mode absolute in view of the special facts of the case. 
The land allotted to appellant under Rajasthan Colonisation 
(Medium & Minor Irrigation Projects Government Lands Allotment) D 
Rules, 1968 was subsequently cancelled by Additional Collector, under 
Rule 17-A, on the ground that in his application for allotment of land, the 
appellant had concealed the materials fact that he was working as a Gram 
Sewak which was his main source of income and that he was neither a bona 
fide agriculturist nor a landless person. The cancellation order, confirmed E 
in appeal as well as in second appeal, was upbeld by the High Court. 
In appeal lo this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that the Collector has no power to cancel the allotment of land under Rule 
17-A because the same was not retrospective. 
Disposing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. Though Rule 17-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation 
(Medium & Minor Irrigation Projects Government Lands Allotment) 
Rules, 1968 was not given retrospective effect but when the order was 
obtained by suppression of the material fact or misrepresenting the G 
material fact or any other factor enumerated in Rule 17-A which vitiates 
the passing of the _order of assignment of the Government land, the order 
becomes illegal. Further, under section 23 of Rajasthan General Clauses 
Act, 1889 the power lo issue notifications or orders would include the 
power of their cancellation. Therefore, the cancellation order passed by H 
1013 
1014 
SU PREM I'. COURT REPORTS 
IJ994) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Collector cannot be said to be illegal and the power exercised by him 
y 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. [1016-A·C, 1015-G] 
2. However, in view of the special facts of this case, although the 
cancellation order is valid, yet the same is set aside with a direction not 
to dispossess the appellant from the land. [1016-E·F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal No. 6088 of 
1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.90 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C. W.P. No. 2394 of 1990. 
Rajendra Singhvi and Surya Kant for the Appellant. 
Aruneshwar Gupta and K.S. Bhatti for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant while being a Gram Sewak had applied for and was 
assigned on November 18, 1968, 5 bighas of land in Khasra No.106 of 
Village Ramakhera Tehsil Nimbahera under Rajasthan Colonisation 
(Medium & Minor Irrigation Projects Government Lands Allotment) 
Rules, 1968, for short 'the Rules'. By proceedings dated June 20, 1980, the 
Additional Collector, Chittorgarh, cancelled the allotment on the ground 
that the appellant had concealed the fact that he was working as a Gram 
Sewak at the time of application and allotment and that he was not a bona 
fide agriculturist and he is not a landless person. On appeal it was con· 
firmed and in second appeal Board of Revenue confirmed the same. The 
appellant filed the writ Petition No.2394/90. The Division Bench by order 
dated July 12, 1990 dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
It is not disputed that person who wants to obtain allotment of land under 
'the Rules' must be a landless person. 
"Rule 3(vi-A) defines 
1'Landlcss person" as: "Landless person'' 
means a resident of Rajasthan who is either a bona fide agricul-
turist or an agricultural labourer, cultivating or likely to cultivate 
the land personally and \Vho.se main source of income is agriculture 
or any subsidiary occupation like cattle breeding, provided .such 
per.son does not hold any tenure land. anywhe;-e in Rajasthan or 
such land ·that he holds is less than a fragment." 
4,. 
' t
..
' 
L, 
~··· 
..J 
TEJ SINGH v. STATE Of' RAJASTHAN 
1015 
Provided that a released Sagri as certified by the Sub-Divisional A 
Officer will be treated as landb s person of that village. 
Explanation-For the purpose of this proviso "Sagri" means th

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