K.D.SHARMA, ACTING C.J. - (1.) THIS is a special appeal filed by Uma Shankar and Bijai Shanker sons of Shri Prayag Chand Purohit under Clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 1631 of 1970, by which the appellants were not held Khatedar tenants of the land in dispute and a writ of prohibition was not issued restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from the disputed land.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this special appeal may be briefly stated as follows: Kunwar Jagjeet Singh son of Rao Devi Singh of village Pugal was recorded as Khatedar tenant of 409 Bighas and 9 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra No 292 of Village Bariyoneala in Tehsil Bikaner in the revenue records from October 15, 19(sic)5 and thereafter, Kunwar Jagjeet Singh sold a (sic) to the appellants vide registered sale deed dated September 13, 1958.his Khatedari rights in 75 Bighas of land out of the said land. After the sale the appellants got their names substituted as Khatedar tenants in place of the name of Kunwar Jagjeet Singh in the revenue record vide mutation order dated August 11, 1959. The appellants were shown as Khatedar tenants in Jamabandi of Smt. Year 2015 to Smt. Year 2017. Later on, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was amended and Section 15A was introduced therein in the year 1958, which barred accrual of Khatedari rights in Rajasthan Canal Area and divested Khatedari tenants of their Khatedari rights in the said area without providing any compensation. The appellants therefore, contended that Section 15A was liable to be struck down, because it violated the provisions of Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India. The appellants further alleged that they have been in continuous possession of the lard in dispute after it was sold away to them by Kunwar Jagjeet Singh. The Rajasthan Canal Project Colonisation authorities, however, declined to treat the appellant a Khatedar tenants of the land in dispute and prevented them form cultivating their land. The appellants, therefore, having no other alternative but to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was heard by a Single Judge of this Court. Before the learned Single Judge the appellants gave on their contention that Section 15A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act should be declared unconstitutional. They, however, sought declaration that they may be declared Khatedar tenant of the land in dispute and the respondents may be restrained from causing any interference with their right to cultivate their land and from ousting them from it. On behalf of the State of Rajasthan, a reply was filed to the writ petition in which is was stated than Rao Devi Singh, father of Jagjeet Singh was a Jagirdar in Bikaner District holding about 42 villages in his Jagir. Rao Devi Singh had four sons, his mother and grand -mother, who were granted land by him in village. Bariyonwala for their maintenance. Jagjeet Singh was in possession of 941 Bighas and 7 Biswas of culturable waste land known as 'Banjar' in v(sic)nacular. The Jagir of Rao Devi Singh was resumed with effect from August 1, 1954 and the land in possession of Jagjeet Singh was resumed with effect from July 1, 1958 and thereafter Jagjeet Singh got payment of compensation Upon resumption of the Jagir, the Jagir land vested in the State Government and, therefore, the sale of the dispute land by Kunwar Jagjeet Singh in favour of the appellants after the resumption of his Jagir land was not a valid sale in the eye of law and the appellants could not acquire any right in the land in dispute by way of registered sale -deed dated September 13, 1958. It was further alleged on behalf of the State of Rajasthan that Jagjeet Singh was a 'Chhut Bhaiya' to whom the land in dispute was granted for maintenance from parent Jagir of his father Rao Devi Singh and, therefore, he was not a Khatedar tenant thereof, In (sic) shell, the contentions advanced on behalf of the State were that the appellants did not acquire Khatedari rights in the land in dispute and so they were not entitled to any relief.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge of this Court, after bearing the parties and upon perusal of the record, came to the conclusion that the appellants could not establish that their predecessor -in -title, namely, Kunwar Jagjeet Singh was a Khatedar tenant of the land in question and that the appellants were entitled to reliefs claimed in their writ petition. He accordingly dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.;