- (1.) These appeals, by Special Leave and Petitions for grant of Special Leave pertaining to agrarian reform legislation in the State of Rajasthan, arise out of and are directed against the judgment dated 21st October 1976, of a Full Bench of the High Court of Rajssthan (reported in AIR 1977 Raj 46), dismissing a batch of special appeals and affirming the judgment dated 2-12-1975, of the learned single Judge of the High Court rejecting appellants' contentions against the legality of certain proceedings for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings initiated and continued under the Provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. In the Writ-petition filed directly in this Court reliefs similar to those sought before the High Court are claimed. The principal controversy before High Court in the proceedings, shorn of its niceties and embellishments, was whether the proceedings for fixation of ceiling area with reference to the appointed date i.e. 1-4-1966 under Chapter, III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, ('1955 Act' for short) could be initiated and continued after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act (Act No. 11 of 1973) ('1973 Act' for short) which w.e.f. 1-1-1973 repealed Section 5(6A) and Chapter III-B of the old Act, i.e. '1955 Act'.
(2.) Chapter III-B, pertaining to imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings, in the State of Rajasthan, was introduced into the '1955 Act' by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1960. As a sequential necessity Section 5 was amended by the introduction in it of Clause (6A) which defined "ceiling area". The notified-date, as originally fixed, was 1-4-1965; but owing to the uncertainties imparted to the implementation of the law by the challenge made to the provisions of Chapter III-B before the High Court and the interim-order of the High Court staying the operation of the law, Government had had to re-notify 1-4-1966 as the fresh notified-date, after the challenge to the validity of Chapter III-B had been repelled by the High Court. By the time, the '1973 Act' was brought into force disputes touching the determination of the ceiling areas in 33,471 cases had come to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III-B of the earlier '1955 Act' After the '1973 Act' came into force on 1-1-1973, some 8,494 cases for the determination of 'ceiling-areas' under III-B of the '1955 Act' came to be initiated and were sought to be continued under said Chapter III-B of the repealed '1955 Act' on the view that the repeal of Chapter III-B of the 1955 Act by the '1973 Act' did not affect the rights accrued and liabilities incurrd under the old law. Appellants' principal contention is that after the coming into force of the 1973 Act which, by its 40th Section, repealed Chapter III-B of the '1955 Act', recourse could not be had to the repealed-law for purposes of commencement, conduct and conclusion of any proceedings for fixation of ceiling as prescribed under the old law. This contention has been repelled by the Full Bench of the High Court in the judgment under appeal. The correctness of view of the Full Bench arises for consideration in these appeals.
(3.) The factual antecedents in which the controversy arose before the High Court may be illustrated by the facts of one of the appeals. In CA 1003 [ N ] of 1977, the appellants claim to have entered into possession and cultivation of certain parcels of land pursuant to alleged agreements to sell dated 28-4-1957 said to have been executed in their favour by the then land-holder, a certain Sri Hari Singh. The sale deeds were passed only on 22-8-1966, after the notified-date. Proceedings for the fixation of ceiling area in the hands of Sri Hari Singh were commenced under the Repealed Chapter III-B of the '1955 Act'. Appellants' purchases were held to be hit by Section 30 DD of the said Chapter III-B, which prescribed certain residential qualifications, which appellants did not possess, for the eligibility for recognition of such transfers. Appellants' contention is that if the new law had been applied to the case of the vendor, the transfers in their favour would have been held valid and that invoking of Chapter III-B. of the repealed law was impermissible. Apart from the facts of individual cases and their particularities the basic question is one of construction whether the provisions of the old law are saved and survive to govern pending cases.;