- (1.) THE instant case is an eye-opener as to what an extent a litigant can abuse to process of the Court as one of the petitioner, a joint Khatedar, had withdrawn the amount of compensation for the land and enjoyed the interim order for about three years by suppressing the material fact. Even today, in respect of the joint Khatedari, the petition got dismissed in a clandestine manner but possession could not be given to respondents as there had been no partition by meet and bounds.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 3, the company, had been granted a mining lease for a big area by the respondent -State for excavation of minerals. THE company filed an application before the District Collector on 26.3.93 (Annex.1) to determine the compensation of a large track of land, including the land in dispute, under the provisions of Sec. 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act, 1956"). Respondent No.2, a joint Khatedar, filed objection before the District Collector on 2.4.1996 to the effect that they had no objection in giving possession of the land to respondent company but they wanted a proper determination of compensation and they did not want to give effect to the compromise/agreement entered into between the parties earlier. THE District Collector rejected the application of respondent company vide order dated 29.6.96. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, respondent company filed an appeal under Sec. 75 of the Act, 1956 and the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide order dated 21.11.96, remanded the case directing the District Collector to determine the compensation in terms of Sec. 89 of the Act, 1956. When the matter came up again before the District Collector, petitioners filed objections on 6.1.1997 contending that the land could be acquired only under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as required under the provisions of Sec. 63 (1) (iii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act, 1955") which provided that the tenancy rights could be extinguished only by acquiring the land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. THE District Collector, vide impugned order dated 3/26.07.1998 (Annex.4), rejected the objections of petitioners and determined the amount of compensation. Hence this writ petition. Mr. P.P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner, has submitted that by virtue of provisions of Sec. 63 of the Act, 1955, it is not permissible for respondents to deprive the petitioner from the land unless the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are not resorted to, for the reason that it is the only provision for extinguishing the right of a tenure-holder. On the other hand Mr. Kalla has submitted that it is not necessary to resort to the said provision for the reason that Sec. 89 of the Act, 1956 is a complete Code in case the land is acquired for the purpose of excavation of mines and minerals. As per the provisions of Sec. 89 of the Act, 1956, undoubtedly all rights to mine and minerals vest in the State Government and it has absolute powers, necessary for the enjoyment of such a right. The right to all mines and quarries, including the right to access to the land for the purpose of mining and quarrying, may be declared by the State Government to be subsidiary to minging and quarrying. Further, the State Government is competent to assign to any person these rights over mines, minerals and quarries. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 89 of the Act 1956, reads as under:- "If, in the exercise of the right herein referred to over any land, the rights of any persons are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the State Government or its assignee shall pay to such persons compensation for such infringement and the amount of such compensation shall be calculated by the Collector, or if his award is not accepted by the Civil court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953." Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid provision that the Land Revenue Act provides for a special procedure of determining the compensation by the District Collector and in case of non-agreement, tenure -holder may move the civil court wherein the compensation shall be determined as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. The submission made by Mr. Chaudhary that in view of the provisions of Sec. 63 of the Act, 1955 the order passed under Sec. 89 of the Act, 1956 is without jurisdiction, is not sustainable for the reason that I am of the considered opinion that the Act of 1956, being a subsequent Act, will prevail over the Act of 1955 as the legislature has consciously provided for the procedure under Sec. 89 knowing well the statutory provisions of Sec. 63 of the Act 1955 and if the legislature has provided for a different mode, the submission made by Mr. Chaudhary is preposterous and is not worth consideration unless the vires of provisions of Sec. 89 of the Act 1956 are challenged and the provisions are struck down. It is settled law that latter Law will prevail for the reason that legislature is supposed to know the law and it would not like to enact the contradictory provisions having application in the same field.
(3.) IN Delhi Municipality vs. Shiv Shanker (1) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as above placing reliance upon the judgment in Paine vs. Stater (2), wherein it has been observed as under:- "Where two Acts are inconsistent or repugnant, the latter will be read as having impliedly repelled the earlier. As the legislature must be presumed in deference to the rule of law to intent to enact consistent and harmonious bodies of law, a subsequent legislation may not be readily presume to effectuate a repeal of existing statutory laws in the absence of express or atleast clear and unambiguous indication to that effect. This is essential in the interest of certainty and consistency in the laws, which citizens are enjoined and expected to obey. The legislature, which may generally be presume to know the existing law, is not expected to intent to create confusion by its omission to express its intent to repeal in clear terms." Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Pune (3) Commissioner, Sales Tax vs. Agra Belting Works (4) and Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur vs. Dealing Dairy Products (5). The Act of 1955 provides for extinguishing the tenancy right generally. It is an enactment dealing with the tenancy rights only. The Act of 1956 is a Code dealing with the rights pertaining to land including tenancy. Section 89 of the Act 1956 deals with tenancy right over land containing minerals. Therefore, being a special legislation, only in that relation, it must prevail over the provisions of the Act of 1955. (Vide Secretary of State vs. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. (6), J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co.Ltd. vs. State of UP. & Ors. (7) and State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement (8). ;