CHANDRASINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these two separate writ petitions, Chandersingh and the State of Rajasthan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to quash the order (Anx. 8) dated August 13, 1974 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (here in after referred to as 'the Board').

(2.) A few facts leading to these petitions may briefly be noticed. The Government of Rajasthan gave on lease a large contract of land about 33,00 acres to the Central Government for a period of 16 years from 1955 to 1971 for the purpose of establishing a mechanized farm The Central Government had option to get the lease extended for a further period of 15 years on the same terms and conditions. The Central State Farm, Suratgarh (for short 'the Farm' herein) was rug by the Central Government through the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, from 1960 to 1969. It is said that in the year 1969, an autonomous Corporation in the name of the state Farms Corporation of India Ltd. (a Government of India Undertaking) was created for the better management of the farms and the administrative control of the Farm was transferred by the Central Government to this Corporation and since then, the Corporation is managing the Farm. The Central Government allotted 419 acres of land comprising of Chak No. 43 PBN to Chandersingh, who is petitioner in D.B. Civil Write Petition No. 3276 of 1974 under an Agreement (Anx. 1) dated September 8, 1969. The Agreement (Anx.1) is signed by Chandersingh as well as the Operational Manager (Agriculture). Central State Farm, Suratgarh. Under this Agreement (Anx 1), the petitioner Chandersingh was required to give 3 1/2 quintals of grain per acre to the Farm. He cultivated the land, which was allotted to him. When the crop was ready, Chandersingh moved an application (Anx. 2) dated May 13, 1970 under Section 148 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No HI of 1955) (for short 'the Act' here in after) praying that an Officer be deputed to make division, estimate or appraisement in accordance with law since the Farm had refused to have a division of the produce mutually according to hw. A notice (Anx.3) dated May 13, 1970 of this application was issued to the Farm to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Section 148 of the Act by the Tehsildar. For appearance May 19, 1970 was fixed. No body appeared before the Tehsildar on May 19, 1970. Another notice (Anx.4) dated May 19, 1970 was issued to the Farm to appear by May 23, 1970, failing which the division would be made in accordance with law. On May 25, 1970, on behalf of the Farm, time was sought for filing reply. It appears from the order sheet (Rule 11) dated May 25, 1970 that the next date fixed was May 30, 1970. On that day, an application (Anx.5) dated May 30, 1970 was filed for stay of proceedings and for a direction to Chandersingh for referring the dispute to the Farm Superintendent under the arbitration clause of the Agreement (Anx, 1). By his order (Anx, 5) dated June 1, 1970, the Tehsildar rejected the application and appointed Surjaram to proceed with the division of the crop in accordance with Sub -sections (8) and (9) of Section 149 of the Act. Chandersingh deposited a sum of Rs. 1,17,000/ - being the value of the produce of the land as directed by the Collector on the basis of the appraisement of the value of the crop mad by the Officer duly appointed for the purpose by him and the amount is lying in deposit there. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Collector the Farm preferred a revision petition under Section 230 of the Act before the Board. The document R -7 dated December 5, 1970 was filed before the Board. The Board by its order (Anx. 8) dated August 13, 1974 accepted the revision petition and held that the land in dispute is covered by the Rajasthan Government Grants Act (No. XX of 1961) (for short the Act of 1961) and hence no action can be taken against the Farm under the Act and that Chandersingh is bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement (Anx 1) and in accordance with which he has to give 3 1/3 quintals of grain per acre to the Farm and in case of any dispute the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator specified in the Agreement. It is against this order of the Board that the petitioner Chandersingh has filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3276 of 1974 and the State of Rajasthan has filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 145 of 1977 for quashing it.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to examine the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, we consider it proper to reproduce the relevant part of the order (Anx.8) dated August 13, 1974: 10. To sum up, Chander Singh non -applicant No. 1 is a contractor of 419 acres of land of Chek No. 43 PBN given to him by the Central State Farm, Suratgarh under a written agreement dated 8 -9 -1969. The non -applicant No. 1 is bound by the terms and conditions contained in this agreement in accordance to which he has to pay produce rent to the Central State Farm and in case of any dispute, the matter is required to be referred to arbitrator specified in the said agreement. The non -applicant No. 1 should, therefore, comply, with this agreement as there is no other alternative to him. It is further held that the land in dispute is covered by the Rajasthan Government Grants Act, 1961 and hence any action could not be initiated against the Central State Farm, Suratgarh or the State Farms Corporation of India, Limited, who are nominees of the Government of India under he provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in the present dispute. This revision is, therefore, accepted with costs and the orders dated 20 -7 -70 of Collector, Ganganagar and 1 -6 -70 of Tehsildar, Suratgarh are hereby set aside and it is directed that Chandra Singh non -applicant No. 1 shall pay the produce rent for the land given to him at the specified rate or cash price equivalent to the price prevalent at the time of rabi harvest 1969 as may be convenient at this stage and in case of any dispute, take recourse to arbitration as mentioned in agreement dated 8 -9 -1969. The first contention raised by Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for Chandersingh is that he was granted a sub -lease by the Farm by means of the Agreement (Anx.1) dated September 8, 1969 and it is clear from it that it was an agreement between Chandersingh and the Farm and as such, it was between two individuals and, therefore, Section 3 of the Act of 1961 is not attracted. He also submitted that Section 3 of the Act of 1961 is not applicable, for, the Agreement (Anx. 1) cannot be said to be 'by or on behalf of the Central Government' as it is not in accordance with Article 299 of the Constitution and further that it is not the case of the Farm that it was executed on behalf of the Central Government. He pressed that the Agreement (Anx. 1) is not in favour of the Central Government. On the other hand, Mr. S N. Pareek, learned Counsel for the Central State Farm submitted that Section 3 of the Act of 1961 applies, for, a perusal of the document (R -7) dated December 5, 1970 clearly shows that interest in land was transferred by the State Government in favour of the Central Government and as such at the time of the Agreement (Anx. 1), the Central Government was the owner of the land and, therefore, Section 3 of the Act of 1961 applies on the basis of the decisions in Surja Kanta v. Secy. of State AIR 1938 Cal 229, Ramanujam v. Ramaswami, AIR 1946 Mad 180 and Champalal v. Rameshwar 1967 RLW 943, Mr. Pareek submitted that Section 3 of the Act of 1961 applies to commercial undertakings.