THAKUR KESARI SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 19-10-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
47 
, 
The appeal must therefore be allowed and the order 
r960 
I 
• 
passed by the High Court set a.side. In the circum-
-
f h 
f 1 
"ll b 
d Nathmal Tolaram 
stances o t e case, no use u purpose w1 
e serve 
by remanding the case to the High Court. We superi:;endent 
accordingly direct that a. writ quashing the proceed-
of Tam 
ings commenced by the Superintendent of Taxes, 
Dhubri, by his notice dated January 30, 1953, be 
Shah J. 
issued. 
The appellants will be entitled to their costs 
of the appeal. 
A ppeaJ, al,lowed. 
THAKUR KESARI SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS. 
(JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR and RAGHUBAR 
DAYAL, JJ.) 
Landlord and Tenant-General refusal of payment of rent-
Notijication by Government-Application for recovery of rent as 
arrears of land revenue-Rescission of notijication-V alidity of pro-
ceeding-Procedure-Marwar Tenancy Act, z949 (XXXIX of 
z949), s. 85-Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdic-
tion) Act, z95r (I of z95rJ, s. 2. 
The Marwar Tenancy Act, r949, now repealed but which 
was in force in the State of Jodhpur at the relevant period, by 
s. 85 authorised the Government in case of any general refusal 
by tenants to pay rent to declare by notification that such rents 
might be recovered as arrears of land revenue. A notification 
having been issued by the Government of Rajasthan under that 
section the appellant, a jagirdar, applied to the Collector there-
under for the recovery of rents due to · him from his tenants. 
The tenants also applied to the Collector stating that notice of 
the said application should be served on them and they should 
be given a hearing as required by the rule framed uncer the 
Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure arid Jurisdiction) Act, 
r95r. The Collector rejected the tenants' application and passed 
an order directing the recovery of the sum found to be due to: 
the appellant as arrears of land revenue. The Additional Com-
missioner on appeal and the Board of Revenue in revision upheld 
the Collector's order. But before the Board passed its order the 
O&lober r9. 
Ig6o 
Thakur Kesari 
Singh 
v. 
The Slate of 
Rajas than 
& Others 
Imam]. 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
Government rescinded the notification. The High Court on an 
application under Art. 226 of the Constitution held that although 
s. 85 of the Tenancy Act had not been repealed by the Revenue 
Courts Act, 1951, the rules framed under that section had been, 
and the non-compliance with the rules framed under the latter 
Act which should have been followed, was an error on the face 
of the record and quashed the orders directing that since the 
notification under s. 85 of the Tenancy Act had been rescinded 
no further action thereunder should be taken by the Collector. 
Held, that there could be no doubt thats. 2 of the Rajasthan 
Revenue Courts (Proceduret.md Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, had not 
repealed s. 85 of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949, and that the 
former Act contemplated its continuance, unfettered by the bar 
of. limitation, and subject to this modification that an applica-
tion under the section was no longer to be made to the Deputy 
commissioner but to the Collector. 
Section 85 of the Tenancy Act clearly contemplated that an 
application thereunder shall be heard and determined in the 
absence of the tenant. The right given by the section was a 
summary one and the application must be heard ex parte. It was 
not, therefore, necessary to serve any notice on the tenants. 
It would not be correct to hold that the procedure of a con-
tested proceeding as prescribed by Ch. II of the Rules framed 
under the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 
1951, could apply to the application for to apply them would be 
to wholly defeat its object. 
· 
· 
Once a notification under the section bad been issued and 
• ' 
an application duly made, subsequent rescission of the notifica-
tion could not divest the appropriate authority of the power 
already vested in him to dispose of the application. 
Crown v. Vaveli, A.LR. r949 Lah. r91, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 277 of 1955. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 
27, 1954, of the Raja.sthan High Court in Civil Mis. 
Writ No. 1/1954. 
N. 0. Ohatterjee, Buresh Agarwal and Ganpat Rai, 
for the appellant. 
R. K. Rastogi and K. L. Mehta, for the respondents. 
1960. October 19. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
IMAM J.-The appella

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