Case: Jaila Singh &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Rajasthan Canal Rules had been framed under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. 1954 but they treated the unit of family differently and cannot therefore be justified. By the same reasoning no distinction can be made between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants by rules made under the same Act.17. One of the arguments attempted before us, though it was not pleaded before the Rajasthan High Court was that in the case of the post-1955 tenants a smaller area had to be allotted because of the pressure for land. We have already pointed out that the difference in the period of occupation between the pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants could not be of such an extent as to justify allotment of , larger extent, of land to the pre-1955 tenants than to the post-1955 tenants nor for the discrimination even among the pre-1955 tenants between those holding more than 25 bighas and those holding less than 25 bighas. If the Rajasthan Government wanted to act fairly by all classes of residents of Rajasthan they could very well have omitted portions in the 1967 Rules found objectionable by the Rajasthan High Court and therefore struck down and there would have been nothing more to say. The striking down of Rules 16 and 19 of the 1967 Rules did not necessitate the promulgation of two wholly new sets of rules. In that case only 15 bighas of land would have been available to each allottee and there would have been no discrimination between one class of persons and another. There would also have been greater extent of land available for allotment to a larger number of persons at the rate of 15 bighas each. One of the justifications pleaded on behalf of the State of Rajasthan for the definition of the landless tenants in the post-1955 Rules as persons holding less than 15 bighas of land was that 15 bighas was a viable unit. In that case it is all the more reason why all allottees whether pre-1955 or post1955 should get 15 bighas.We are unable to see any justification for treating the Pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants differently. What prompted the Rajasthan State to do so in 1971 when they did not do so in 1967 and the decision of the Raiasthan High Court in regard to the 1967 Rules did not compel them to do so is beyond our comprehension. We are not able to accept the contention that they belonged to two different classes. By that standard any arbitrary difference could be fixed and it could be said that persons who got temporary leases before that date belonged to one, class and the persons who had been allotted land after that date formed another class. We have already shown that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has no relevance at all to the decision of this question and therefore 15-10-1955, the date on which it came into force, has no relevance to the classification attempted by pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants. The classification must have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. We can see no such nexus in this case. We thus find that the definition of the landless tenants as well as the rules for allotment in the post 1955 Rules as compared to the pre1955 conditions are discriminatory and unjustifiable.18. As regards the discrimination in the matter of payment of price between the pre-1955 and post1955 tenants, it was urged on behalf of the State of Rajasthan that this was not urged in the writ petitions of the two appellants and so cannot be gone into by this Court. The question of price has been raised in the two writ petitions but it was on a different aspect and not on the question that the pre-1955 tenants did not have to pay any price while post-1955 tenants had to do so. But it has been argued before the learned Single Judge, and he has dealt with it apparently without any objection being taken to it on the part of the State of Rajasthan. This question of price is not mentioned as one of the matters which were raised before the Division Bench which heard the appeal. We find it difficult to conceive of the appellants having given up that plea before the Appellate Bench having argued it before the learned. Single Judge. It is urged on behalf of the State of Rajasthan that there may be reasons why pre-1955 tenants are treated differently in the matter of payment of price. If there were any, they were not put forward before the learned Single Judge. But as materials regarding it are not available before us, we propose to say nothing about it. But we may point out that, as the rules stand there seems to be some discrimination in the matter of price between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants, in that pre-1955 tenants, who hold land exceeding 25 bighas, have to pay nothing for land up to 25 bighas, while post-1955 tenants, who hold land less than 15 bighas, have to pay price for land which may be allotted to them so as to make up 25 bighas. We are mentioning this only so that the State may look into the matter of price and set it right to avoid any discrimination. There seems to be no difficulty at all in all this because none of the tenants, whether they are pre-1955 or post-1955 tenants, have any vested rights. It is the duty of the State to treat fairly all classes of tenants in the Rajasthan Canal Area whether pre-1955 or post1955 tenants.19. No arguments were advanced regarding the validity of the Act and we think rightly so. The arguments were confined to Condition 3 and proviso to Condition 9 of pre-1955 Conditions and Rules 2 (1) (xiii) and 3 (2) of the post-1955 Rules. In effect appellants had no objection to paying for extra land to be allotted to them. They object only to the discrimination against them as compared to the pre-1955 tenants.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Thus a person holding lands in excess of 25 bighas was at a distinct advantage in that he could keep the land in excess of 25 bighas, and upto 50 bighas by paying the value only for the excess, compared to the man who had less than 25 bighas who could be given land upto 25 bighas. The discrimination between the two classes is obvious and no justification has been put forward nor can be put forward for thiscontentions are so substantial and the discrimination so striking and the justification attempted so feeble that we have no hesitation in accepting them. We have already referred to some of them.14. We are unable to see the nexus between the pre-1955 Conditions and post-1955 Rules and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which came into force on 15-10-1955.In these cases we are concerned with the validity of the rules relating to the allotment of Government land which had been given on temporary leases to various persons whether before 1955 or after 1955. Both sets of leases had been cancelled by the relevant pre-1955 Condition and post-1955 Rule and there is no dispute that the Pre-1955 leases cannot be cancelled while post l955 leases could be cancelled. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not concerned with that question. Proviso to Section 15 of that Act specifically provides that no Khatedari rights shall accrue under that section to any tenant, to whom land is or has been let out temporarily in Gang Canal Bhakra, Chambal or Jawai Project area, or any other area notified in that behalf by the State Government. Admittedly the Rajasthan Canal area has been included within the scope of this proviso by a notification. To make matters more clear Section 15A also provides that the land in the Rajasthan Canal area leased out on any terms whatsoever shall be deemed to have been let out temporarily within the meaning of the proviso earlier mentioned and no Khatedari rights shall accrue or shall be deemed ever to have accrued in any such land leased out as aforesaid. This provision thus applies to both pre-1955 as well as post-1955 leases. Both these leases stand on the same footing and therefore do not form different classes.15. The reference to Ss. 15 and 15A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in deciding the questions that arise in these cases is therefore wholly irrelevant. Nor are we satisfied that the length of occupation of the lands provides any proper criterion for the distinction between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants. There is nothing to show how long before 15th October 1955 pre-1955 tenants were given temporary leases and in the absence of such material, it is impossible to see how any differentiation can be made between pre-1955 and Post-1955 tenants in the matter of permanent allotment of land. Even in 1967 when the 1967 Rules were made no distinction was sought to be made between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants. By that time many of post - l955 tenants would have been in possession for about 12 years and in 1971 they would have been in possession for about 16 years. It is difficult to appreciate how it should make any difference from the point of view of allotment of land, whether a tenant has been in occupation for 16 years or 18 or 20 years and why differentiation should be made with reference to the date when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force. The 1967 Rules no doubt provide for cancellation of all post-1955 temporary cultivation leases but in actual effect it made no difference. Under these Rules persons eligible for allotment were landless tenants. Landless tenant was defined as a bona fide agriculturist who is a resident of Rajasthan since before 1st April 1955 and who cultivates or can reasonably be expected to cultivate land personally but who does not hold any land in his own name or in the name of any member of his joint family and who is not a sub-tenant of any land, owner or land holder holding tenure khatas under proprietary, mauroosee or khatedari rights and is not liable to ejectment under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 or under any other law for the time being in force in the area in which the land is situated or who holds only a fragment of land measuring 15 bighas. No distinction was made between pre-1955 and Post-1955 tenants in the matter of allotment. Provided an agriculturist had less than 15 bighas he was entitled to allotment of land. The allotment was also to an extent sufficient to make up 25 bighas of command land. Here again no distinction was made between post-1955 and pre-l955 tenants, Nor was there any difference in the sale price to be paid by the different classes ofhave already pointed out that the difference in the period of occupation between the pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants could not be of such an extent as to justify allotment of , larger extent, of land to the pre-1955 tenants than to the post-1955 tenants nor for the discrimination even among the pre-1955 tenants between those holding more than 25 bighas and those holding less than 25 bighas. If the Rajasthan Government wanted to act fairly by all classes of residents of Rajasthan they could very well have omitted portions in the 1967 Rules found objectionable by the Rajasthan High Court and therefore struck down and there would have been nothing more to say. The striking down of Rules 16 and 19 of the 1967 Rules did not necessitate the promulgation of two wholly new sets of rules. In that case only 15 bighas of land would have been available to each allottee and there would have been no discrimination between one class of persons and another. There would also have been greater extent of land available for allotment to a larger number of persons at the rate of 15 bighasare unable to see any justification for treating the Pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants differently. What prompted the Rajasthan State to do so in 1971 when they did not do so in 1967 and the decision of the Raiasthan High Court in regard to the 1967 Rules did not compel them to do so is beyond our comprehension. We are not able to accept the contention that they belonged to two different classes. By that standard any arbitrary difference could be fixed and it could be said that persons who got temporary leases before that date belonged to one, class and the persons who had been allotted land after that date formed another class. We have already shown that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has no relevance at all to the decision of this question and therefore 15-10-1955, the date on which it came into force, has no relevance to the classification attempted by pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants. The classification must have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. We can see no such nexus in this case. We thus find that the definition of the landless tenants as well as the rules for allotment in the post 1955 Rules as compared to the pre1955 conditions are discriminatory andquestion of price has been raised in the two writ petitions but it was on a different aspect and not on the question that the pre-1955 tenants did not have to pay any price while post-1955 tenants had to do so. But it has been argued before the learned Single Judge, and he has dealt with it apparently without any objection being taken to it on the part of the State of Rajasthan. This question of price is not mentioned as one of the matters which were raised before the Division Bench which heard the appeal. We find it difficult to conceive of the appellants having given up that plea before the Appellate Bench having argued it before the learned. SingleIf there were any, they were not put forward before the learned Single Judge. But as materials regarding it are not available before us, we propose to say nothing about it. But we may point out that, as the rules stand there seems to be some discrimination in the matter of price between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants, in that pre-1955 tenants, who hold land exceeding 25 bighas, have to pay nothing for land up to 25 bighas, while post-1955 tenants, who hold land less than 15 bighas, have to pay price for land which may be allotted to them so as to make up 25 bighas. We are mentioning this only so that the State may look into the matter of price and set it right to avoid any discrimination. There seems to be no difficulty at all in all this because none of the tenants, whether they are pre-1955 or post-1955 tenants, have any vested rights. It is the duty of the State to treat fairly all classes of tenants in the Rajasthan Canal Area whether pre-1955 or post1955 tenants.19. No arguments were advanced regarding the validity of the Act and we think rightly so. The arguments were confined to Condition 3 and proviso to Condition 9 of pre-1955 Conditions and Rules 2 (1) (xiii) and 3 (2) of the post-1955 Rules. In effect appellants had no objection to paying for extra land to be allotted to them. They object only to the discrimination against them as compared to the pre-1955 tenants.