- (1.) THROUGH this revision petition the State seeks to attack the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 26-12-64 on the ground that the learned R. A. A. has seriously erred in law in not taking into consideration the effect of the 17th Amendment of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IT is averred that the authority of Surjaram Versus State (1963 RRD Page 1) is no more good law in view of the aforesaid amendment. In that case the Rajas-than High Court had struck down sec. 15-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as ultra vires of the Constitution on the ground that sec. 15a seeks to take khatedari rights without payment of compensation and offends the guarantee provided by the Constitution under Art, 31 (2) IT is now urged before me that as a result of the 17th Amendment of the Constitution sec. 15-A has been resuscitated and in ignoring this provision of law, the learned R. A. A. has fallen into an error. In support of this contention, my attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Pooran Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 19/66 decided on 29-8-66 ). In this case their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court repelled the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the decision of Rajasthan Tenancy Act was struck down by their decision as offending the guarantee provided by the Constitution under Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution and as such had no application in that case. Rejecting this plea it was observed by their Lordships that this argument was clearly untenable after the amendment of the Constitution by the 17th Amendment whereby Schedule 9 to the Constitution was amended and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was added to it. IT was discussed by their Lordships that by this amendment Art. 31 (b) of the Consti-tution became applicable to it and the validity of sec. 15-A, notwithstanding the judgment of this court could not be challenged on the ground of want of compensation. It is argued on behalf of the opposite party that they had acquired khatedari rights before the promulgation of this Act and that subsequent divestment was not contemplated by law. It is urged that sec. 15-A has no application to the instant case as it covers lands which may have been leased out but not lands under the Khudkasht. To appreciate this argument we may reproduce sec. 15-A : - "khatedari rights not to accrue in Rajasthan Canal area - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec. 13 or in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any lease, patta or other document, land in the Rajasthan Canal area leased out (xxx) on any terms whatsoever shall be deemed to have been let out temporarily within the meaning of the proviso to the said sub-section of the said sec. 15 of this Act and no Khatedari rights shall accrue or shall be deemed ever to have accrued in any such land leased out as aforesaid. Provided that nothing in sub-sec. (1) shall affect or apply to any person to whom Khatedari rights shall accrue in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (General Colony) Conditions, 1955 or any other Statement of Conditions or Rules of Allotment and Sale of Government lands made in exercise of the power conferred by sec. 27 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 27 of 1954) or the rules for allotment of lands for Khudkasht in the Rajasthan Canal area made under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Rajasthan Act 6 of 1952 ). (2) Any person claiming that he possesses and is in enjoyment of Khatedari rights in any land referred to in sub-sec. (1) because such land had been let out to him permanently before the commencement of this Act may within four years from the date of such commencement and on payment of a court-fee of twenty five naye paise, apply to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction, praying for a declaration to that effect, and the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of sec, 15 shall apply to such application. " It is clear from a perusal of the above that the lands covered by this section are the lands under lease. Now the non-petitioners in this case are entered as Khudkasht in the Misal Bandobast for St. 2006. As stated above, Khudkasht lands cannot be deemed to be under lease. No doubt Sec. 15-A mentions the phrase 'notwithstanding anything contained in sec. 13' yet its operative part applies only to cases of lease and as a land holder who holds land in his Khudkasht cannot be said to have leased it out to himself, this section will not govern his case. In view of the above, the impugned order calls for no interference. The revision petition is hereby rejected. .;