M. L. SHRIMAL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order, dated October 11, 1979, passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Revision Case No. 54 of 1977, whereby the Board of Revenue, while dismissing the revision petition, held that the petitioner's counsel had already exercised opinion under sub-section (2) of Section 30e of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') regarding the land situated within the subdivision Dausa. As no appeal was filed against it, that order became final and it was not open to the petitioner or Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, to re-open that case and provide him a second option for change of land from Dausa Sub-Division to Tonk Sub-Division.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner holds land in two sub-divisions, Dausa, and Tonk. Proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, were instituted against him. In response to the notice issued he filed objections in both the sub-divisions. On May 30, 1975, the matter came up for decision before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa. Out of the total land, measuring 295 Bighas 6 Biswas, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer held that the petitioner after deducting the recognisable transfers made by him possessed 186 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land i. e. 46. 8 standad acres. As the petitioner's family consisted of five members, he was entitled to 30 standard acres of land and the rest of the land measuring 16. 8 acres was resumable. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, that some proceeding regarding ceiling area relating to petitioner's land situated in Tehsil Deoli was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, but he was not in a position to show as to how much land was situated in that Village. He also exhibited his ignorance regarding the fact whether or not the land situated in Tehsil Lalsot was shown in the declaration submitted before the sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk. However, the learned counsel in his discretion, as a duly authorised representative of the petitioner, submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer that his client would like to keep 30 standard acres of land situated in Tehsil Lalsot, which fell within the jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa. In accordance with the desire expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Sub-Divisional Officer allotted 30 standard acres of land vide his order dated May 30, 1975, which has been placed on record by the petitioner and marked Annexure-2. No appeal seems to have been filed against this order and as such it became final. The proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, came up for decision on October 14, 1976. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after leaving the land occupied by Mangal Singh, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was Khatedar tenant of the land, measuring 193 Bighas and 11 Biswas situated in sub-Division, Tonk. As 30 standard acres of land had already been left for the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, the entier land situated in Tonk sub-division became resumable and he ordered accordingly. In the appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority the learned Presiding Officer observed that though the ceiling proceedings ought to have been decided by one officer and that strict compliance of Rule 9 and Rule 12 of the Rules i. e. , the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Government Rules, 1963 had not been made, yet as the option to choose the surplus land had already been exercised by a duly authorised counsel before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, it was not within the competence of the authority to revise the order, dated May 30,1975, was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa. Such an order had become final in absence of an appeal against it. Not satisfied with the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner went up in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, upholding the findings arrived at by the Revenue Appellate Authority, dismissed the revision petition. Hence this writ petition. Though the petition is not maintainable for the reasons mentioned hereinafter, yet in order to examine the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner adjournments were allowed and opportunity was given to the petitioner by this Court to make an application in writing as to whether he was in a position to surrender physical possession of the vacant land allotted to him by Sub Divisional Officer, Dausa, so that the Government might be directed to give him land in exchange in Sub-division Tonk. However, no such application has been made by the petitioner. The main question raised before us is that it was obligatory for the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, to call a report from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk and both the proceedings ought to have been taken simultaneously. The question which vexed both the Revenue Authorities was whether the order, passed on May 30, 1975, which had become final by not filing any appeal, could be interfered within the other proceedings on the ground of procedural irregularity in the other case and the Court held that it was not possible. The learned Government Advocate appearing before us has shown that the land which the petitioner wants to surrender now is not under the physical possession of the petitioner, whereas the surplus land, situated in Tehsil Lalsot, surrendered by the petitioner has been allotted to other landless persons. Learned Government Advocate has also placed before us the original file, which shows that in the declaration made under Rule 9 by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, it has not been mentioned that the petitioner had Major portion of the land, situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk. Besides that no additional copy of the declaration was also submitted for sending it to the Tehsil in which the land is alleged to have been situated in other Sub-Division. Thus, the petitioner had failed to make compliance of rule 9 and it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk or the Revenue Appellate Authority of the Board of Revenue committed any irregularity or illegality in not allowing him to change the option. Agriculture is the key sector of our economy. A large majority of our people live in rural areas and most of them make living through agriculture. It is generally true that a few individuals who own a large share of land dominate, local politics and through their roles as leaders, landlords and employers, the economic lives of their neighbours. The landless, the in-secured tenants and those owning marginal plots too small to support a family constitute poorest of the poor. It is they who in many cases are born into debt and die in debt, who see upto half of their infants die before age five, who live chronically in a tight rope of survival from which they can quickly fall any day if the whether turns against them. Sometime by bullets, sometime by lathis and sometime by wordy warfare a debate regarding land reforms and allotment of land to landless tenants had been going on since August 15, 1947. A special committee appointed in 1947 headed by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to work out directives for the congress economic policies stated among other matters relating to agriculture that "the maximum size of holding should be fixed. The surplus land over such maximum should be acquired and placed at the disposal of village co-operatives. " (see page 5 Ceiling on Agricultural Land by Z. A. Ahmed ). This was perhaps the first policy statement regarding land reform by the ruling party.
(3.) THE Indian Constitution is first and foremost a social document. Our founding fathers provided in Article 39 of the Constitution of India that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are to be so distributed as best to subserve the common good. THEy also provided that the operation of the economic system should not result in concentration of wealth and means to the common detriment. With this end in view the ceiling laws were enacted in several States and similarly in Rajasthan the law was enacted in the year 1963. We are in the year 1980 A long period of the 17 years has elapsed in between. As early as on May 16, 1951 Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of this country in a debate on First Amendment Bill to the Constitution observed: - ". . . . . . a survey of Asia today will lead any intelligent person to swear that the basic and the primary problem is the land problem today in Asia, as in India. And every day of delay adds to the difficulties and dangers apart from being injustice in itself. " The proverbial delay on the part of the Government and its apathy in distribution of land to landless tenants is a vexing question which sometimes disturbs the conscience of the Court. We have examined the case from all points of view and we are satisfied that substantial justice has been done to the petitioner. Re-opening of the option exercised by the petitioner's counsel at such a late stage is likely to prejudicially affect the position of other landless tenants who have been allotted surplus land and must have made improvement over it by spending their entire life savings. Moreover, allowing of the prayer made by the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be said to be in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, specially when the petitioner is not in a position to deliver physical possession of the land, which he wants to surrender. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed. . ;