- (1.) THIS is a reference by the S. D. M. Beawar through the Collector, Ajmer under sec. 243 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for resolving a question relating to the conflict of jurisdiction.
(2.) THE facts which have led to this reference may be briefly stated as follows : - Shri Bheru S/o Jawara Gujar of Kharwa instituted a suit on 24th of March, 1948 in the court of the Sub-Judge First Class, Beawar for the issue of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from ejecting the plaintiff from land comprising Khasra No. 2762 in village Kharwa. Subsequent to the institution of the suit, the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act No. 2 of 1958 (hereinafter referred as Act No. 2 of 1958) was promulgated by the Rajasthan Legislature and under that law, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was extended to the areas of the former Ajmer State, THE Sub Judge First Class, Beawar found that the suit is triable exclusively by a revenue court as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1958 and, therefore, transferred the case to the court of the S. D. O. Beawar. In the latter court, plaintiff raised an objection that the suit was not triable by a revenue court. THE contention on behalf of the plaintiff was that the Act No. 2 of 1958 has no retrospective effect and, therefore, the provision of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act cannot be applied retrospectively to cases instituted in the former Ajmer State prior to the promulgation of the Act No. 2 of 1958. A judgment of the Board of Revenue was also placed before the S. D. O. Beawar on behalf of the plaintiff in support of his contention. THE S. D. O. agreeing with the contention of the plaintiff expressed disagreement with the order of the civil court transferring the case to the revenue court. He, vide his order dated 10. 12. 1958, has accordingly made a reference through the Collector to this Court for determining whether this case should be tried by a civil court or a revenue court. Shri S. L. Mardia appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and supported the reference. Shri Ram Autar Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate canvassed for the adoption of a contrary view. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relying upon the view adopted by the Board of Revenue in a revenue case referred to in the order of the S. D. O. has made the following submissions: - (1) The Act No. 2 of 1958 extending the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 should not be construed so as to have a retrospective effect as there is a presumption for a prospective effect of a legislation. (2) That, although it is open to a legislature to give a retrospective effect to a statute expressly or by necessary intendment, the Act No. 2 of 1958 does not do so. On the general question, it will be pertinent to bear in mind a distinction between substantive laws and the adjective or procedural laws. The principle against giving retrospective effect to an enactment is generally speaking true of substantive lews only and cannot be extended to adjective or procedural laws or to be more precise to provisions in statutes relating to procedural matters. Procedural provisions generally speaking are retrospective; the reason being that no one can have a vested right in procedure. However, sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act embodies a rule that pending proceeding should continue to be regulated by the old procedure. The position stated generally may not admit of any serious controversy. They real question, however, is whether with the extension of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to Ajmer area and on the language of sec. 206 (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, is it necessary to give them a retrospective effect so as to affect the forum of cases pending on the date of the extension of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to Ajmer area. For answering this question it is not necessary to decide whether the Act no. 2 of 1958 applies retrospectively as in my opinion, the answer depends upon the proper effect to be given to the language of sec. (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. On the coming into force of the, Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the preceding similar legislation, the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act No. 1 of 1951 with provisions similar to Sec. 206; cases, pending in civil courts and declared to be triable exclusively by revenue courts were held to have been affected and were required to be transferred to the revenue courts. A retrospective operation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in this limited sens2 cannot be doubted at all. So far as the Ajmer area is concerned, the Rajasthan- Tenancy Act shall be deemed to have come into force when by the Act No. 2 of 1958, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was extended to that area and according to the clear terms of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 206 having retrospective effect with regard to all cases pending in civil courts which were declared to be exclusively triable by a revenue court, they must of necessity be transferred by such civil courts to competent revenue courts. Sub-sec. (3) is clearly intended to give retrospective effect to the procedural law relating to forum and to govern even pending cases. The argument that this sub-section should be construed only with reference to the original date when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force and should not be considered with reference to the date of extension of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to Ajmer area, appears to be clearly fallacious. The fact that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was extended to Ajmer area, cannot but mean that the Act came into force in that area on the date when it was extended, and, therefore, the applicability of sub-section (3) to cases pending on the date of the promulgation of the Act No. 2 of 1958 cannot be evaded only on a contention that this sub-section applies only to those cases, which were pending when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act initially came into force. On general principles of interpretation, I have no doubt that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act shall be deemed to have come into force so far as the Ajmer State is concerned on 15th of June, 1958 and all pending cases on that date shall have to be transferred in accordance with the provisions of sec. 206 (3 ). The S. D. O. committed an error in holding that sub-sec. (3) cannot apply to the facts of the present case. In this view of the law, I have no doubt that all suits pending in civil courts and exclusively triable by revenue courts under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act must be transferred to revenue courts. The civil court was quite right in transferring the case be the revenue court. I, therefore, reject the reference and direct that the S. D. O. , Beawar shall entertain the suit and will proceed to decide it in accordance with law. . ;