SHRIMAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Rajeshwar Singh, Ex Jagirdar of Samod, challenging the validity of the order, dated August 23, 1978 (Annexure-6), passed by the State Government under section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 562 27, 1978 (Ann-8), passed by the Additional Collector (I), Jaipur as well as the order, dated May 21, 1980 (Ann-9), passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.
(2.) AGRICULTURE is the key sector of our country. 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, they influence the day to day behaviour 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 dies before age five, who live chronically in a tight rope of survival from which they can quickly fall any day if the weather turns against them. As such before dealing with the facts of the case in hand, it would be beneficial to narrate the salient features of land legislation in Rajasthan. "land to the tiller" has been our cherished ideal since the days of struggle for freedom. Sometime by bullets, sometime by lathis and some time 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 Jawahar Lal Nehru to work out directives for the congress economic policy stated among other mattters 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. " This was perhaps the first policy statement regarding land reform by the ruling party. 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. " Having abolished intermediaries like Jagirdari, Zamindari, Biswadari the States of Rajasthan embarked upon an other fact of the programme of agrarian reform. By the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Act No. 4 of 1960), Chapter III-B was inserted in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 fixing a ceiling on agricultural holdings. The Act came into force on December 15,1963. The object and purpose of the Act was to distribute surplus land to the landless and to remove disparity in the holding of agricultural land and to increase agricultural production. The motive behind this Act was to advance socialism and ensure equitable distribution of agricultural land as laid down in Article 39 of the Constitution of India for securing that the ownership and the control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good. The anxiety of the land-holders not to surrender surplus land led to the filing of a number of writ petitions and the constitutional validity of the amending Act was challenged, but ultimately the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court vide Prithviraj v State of Rajasthan (1) and thereafter the notified date was fixed as April 1, 1966, vide Notification No. F6 (9) Rev/b/64 dated February 11, 1966. The Act fixed 30 standard acres of land as the ceiling area. Directions were issued by the said Notification that declarations in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Government Rules, 1963 should be filed within six months from the notified date. The landowners' lobby, however, made active efforts as a result of which certain amendments were brought in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The effect of the amendment was that it maintained the celling area to the extent of 30 standard acres but recognised certain transfers effected after 1958 which could not be recognised under the unamended law. The law was again amended in 1970. The Parliament in order to avoid litigation between the State and the landholders, placed the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. As usual the landowners again unsuccessfully challenged its validity before the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the law as contained in Chapter III-B and section 5 (6-A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was repealed by the Rajasthan imposition of ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. There was some confusion regarding the procedure to be followed relating to the pending cases and in order to delay the acquisition of the surplus land again a number of writ petitions were filed before this Court which were ultimately dismissed an unanimous decision of a full Bench of this Court in Bansidhar vs. State of Rajasthan (2 ). Again the validity of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceilling of Land) Government Rules, 1963 was unsuccessfully challenged in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 420 of 1977, Ram Niwas v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on November 17, 1977.
(3.) THEREAFTER section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was substituted by section 4 of the Rajasthan Amending Act No. 8 of 1976, published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part IV-A dated February 5, 1976 The validity of the amended provision was challenged in Sajjansingh V State of Rajasthan (3 ). Learned single Judge after giving a careful thought to the arguments advanced before him, upheld the validity of the provisions of the Amending Act No. 8 of 1976. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are that proceedings under Chatper III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were initiated against the petitioner as he failed to make a declaration and surrender excess land as required by the provisions of section 30-E (2) of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as the S. D. O. '), after obtaining report from the concerned Tehsildar, held that the petitioner possessed 837 Bighas and 19 Biswas of land. Out of the transfers made by the petitioner on various dates in favour of different persons, the S. D. O. recognised the following transfers: Name of village and Tehsil. To whom Sold. Area Mode of sale 1. Hasanpura Teh. Jaipur. N. B. C. 478 Regd. 26. ?. 67 2. Sodala, Teh Jaipur. Girraj, kishan, Hariballabh 312 Regd. 13. 11. 69 3. Samod Teh. Amber Rameshwar Dhabi 34 Sale 1. 4. 69 4. Fatehpur Teh. Amber 2. 0 5. Govidpura Teh. Janwa Ramgarh 51 0 After recognising the above noted transfers, the S. D. O. , held that petitioner had 129. 3 standard acres of land and after allowing 30 standard acres of land in favour of the petitioner, 99. 3 standard acres of land was held to be resumable. Not being satisfied with the above order, dated October 30, 1971, the petitioner as well as the State Government raised dispute before the learned Appellate Authority by way of appeal and cross-objection. The cross-objections filed by the State Government were partly allowed and the transfer made in favour of Rameshwar Dhabi was not recognised. With this modification in the order of the S. D. O. , learned Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal and cross-objections. The petitioner again went up in revision before the Board of Revenue, but met with no success and the same was dismissed: vide order, dated August 6, 1976 (Ann-4 ). While dismissing the revision petition, learned Member of the Board of Revenue allowed the petitioner to exercise option before the S. D. O. , within two weeks in respect of the lands he might choose to retain upto the ceiling area, subject to the second proviso' to section 33-E (2)of the Act. ;