Sharma, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sardar inder Singh and Krishi Sahkarini Samiti, Bhimnagar, through its Secretary, Satya Pal Singh, against the State of Rajasthan, the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, and 23 other respondents, who were applicants before the Anti Ejectment Officer in 23 different cases under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (NO. IX Of 1949).
(2.) The petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 1 leased the whole of his land 582 bighas to the petitioner No. 2 for a period of 10 years in connection with the "GROW MORE FOOD CAMPAIGN", and got the patta registered before the Tehsildar, Bayana, on 1-3-1952, and the possession of the land was transferred by the petitioner No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2 by the date of registration of the patta. The respondents Nos. 4 to 26 filed separate applications in the Court of S.D.O., Bayana, under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, for reinstatement on different parcels of the above-mentioned land, saying that they were in possession of it and were dispossessed by the petitioners. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bayana, on 7-7-1952, ordered that the respondents Nos. 4 to 26 be reinstated on the lands mentioned in their applications. Against this order of the S.D.O., the petitioner No. 2 filed 23 revision applications, one in each of the 23 cases, before the Board of Revenue under Section 10 (2) of the Ordinance, and the Revenue Board remandad these cases on 10-1-1953, by one judgment, for disposing them of according to law after giving notice to the petitioner No. 2. It has been averred that the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, was now proceeding to make enquiry in these cases without jurisdiction, and hence the necessity of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The grounds, on which the jurisdiction of the Anti Ejectment Officer is questioned are as follows: (1) There is no relationship of landholder and tenants between the petitioner No, 2 and the respondents Nos. 4 to 26, and, therefore, the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, do not apply, and the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, and the Board of Revenue have wrongly assumed jurisdiction to give protection to the respondents Nos. 4 to 26 under Section 7 of the Ordinance. (2) The said Ordinance is 'ultra vires', and infringes the provisions of Articles 13, 14, 15, and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India. (3) Under Section 1 (3) of the Ordinance, power could not be delegated to the Rajpramukh (who ivas not the Legislature at the time of extension of the life of the Ordinance) to extend the life of the Ordinance, as the extension of the period amounted to legislation, and it could not be delegated to the Rajpramukh. The Ordinance and the extension of time for another two years were 'ultra vires' on the above ground. The extension was also not published in the Gazette by the Rajpramukh or under his orders, but was published by the Govt. of Rajasthan who was never delegated these powers. (4) When Section 7 of the Ordinance was amended on 5th May, 1952, the whole of the Act, and not the amendment, should have been placed before the Legislature, as the extension of the life of the Ordinance was 'ultra vires' the powers of the Rajpramukh, and when the Ordinance had expired by lapse of time, the amendment was without any meaning and without any jurisdiction. The Ordinance together with the amendment was, therefore, 'ultra vires', and the respondents Nos. 4 to 26 could not get protection under it. (5) The Ordinance was arbitrary and not based on reasonable classification, and there was no evidence that in the Bharatpur State the Ordinance should have been promulgated. (6) The Ordinance was 'ultra vires' also on this ground that it was not put before the Legislature within six weeks when the first Rajasthan Assembly came in Session.;