LexTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. versus TARSEM SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ -
A
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
v.
{
TARSEM SINGH AND ANR.
MARCH 23, 1995
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
Rajasthan Colonisation (Pennanent Allotment and Sale of Land in /
Gang Canal Area) Rules, 1956: Rules 7, 9 and Proviso.
Government Land-Grant of-Price for-Detennination under Rule
c 7--Land in excess of ceiling-Allotment under Rule 9-Government order
regarding-Condition-Allottee of additional land in excess of ceiling area to
pay prevailing market price-Delegation of power to Collector to quantify
market price-Held not without authority of law.
D
The respondent-cultivators were allotted Government land on tern-
porary lease-hold basis in Gang Canal area. Subsequently, it was decided
that they would be allotted lands on permanent basis under Rajasthan
Colonisation (Permanent Allotment and Sale of Land in Gang Canal
Areas) Rules, 1956 on payment of price determined by Government under
E· .Rule 7 of the Rules fixed vide Notification dated June 4, 1981. As some of
the cultivators were found in possession of land in excess of the ceiling
prescribed, it was decided to allot the excess land to the major sons of the
cultivators treating them as a separate unit. Consequently, the Govern-
ment issued order dated 9th May, 1985 under which the allottee of addi-
tional land in excess of the ceiling limit was to pay the prevailing market
F
price. However, the Government instead of quantifying the market value
itself, delegated the function to quantify the market price of the local area ~.-"
to the Collector under proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules. The Collector
constituted a committee which fixed prevailing market price in that behalf ~
and got it published along with the notification inviting application for
G allotment.
The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging
the power of the Collector to fix the market price contending that having
~
faxed the scales of prices under Rule 7 at which the land allotted was to be
charged the Government had no further power under rule 9 to fix the
2
H
market value once again. The High Court held that the Collector 'as no
1008
•
STATE v. TARSEM SINGH
1009
power to fix the revised market rate, de hors Rule 7 and therefore his action A
was without the authority of law. The High Court rejected the contention
of the State Government that the Collector had fixed the price as the
Government had delegated that power to him and held that Rule 7 was the
only source of power to fix the prices of land to be allotted and having
exercised that power, Government cannot delegate that power to the Col-
B
lector under Rule 9.
Allowing the appeals filed by the State Government, this Court.
HELD : A reading of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Permanent Allot·
ment and sale of Land in Gang Canal Area) Rules, 1956 would clearly
C
indicate that the view expressed by the High Court is not correct. By
operation of a non-obstante clause, Rule 9 excluded the operation of Rule
7 and the Government are empowered to allot the land as a special case
or special class of cases. The proviso to Rule 9 give power to the Govern-
ment to make such allotment subject to such terms and conditions. One
of the conditions mentioned in the Government order for allotment was D
payment of the prevailing market value. What the Collector had got done
was only a ministerial act of getting the prevaiiing market price in that
particular locality quantified. He did not independently exercise the power.
Considered from that perspective, the High Court was wrong in its holding
that the Government have no power under Rule 9 to fix the price.
E
[1013-H, 1014-A·B]
State of Rajasthan & Ors. etc. etc. v. Kishan Singh etc. etc., [1992) 3
SCR 748, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4727-"lE
of 1995 etc. etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.88 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.W.P. Nos. 2E35 & 2E83 of 1987.
B.D. Sharma for the Appellants.
Manu Mridul and Surya Kant for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F
G
H
A
B
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R ..
.
We have heard counsel on both sides. The facts lie in a short compass
for deciding the question of law raised in these appeals. The respondents
are temporary cultivators to whom Government land was assigned on
temporary lease-hold basis in Gang Canal area. The Government decided
to allot the lands on Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.