Skip to content
Home » Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram

Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram

Merely because a person’s grandfather and father had purchased the agricultural lands in a State, that person cannot be said to be an ordinarily resident of that State.

Words and Phrases – ‘Ordinarily Resident’ – Representation of the People Act, 1950 – Section 20 (1)  – ‘Ordinarily Resident’ means a person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling house therein.

Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan) – Section 42 – Colonization Act, 1954 (Rajasthan) – Section 13.  

The appellant – original defendant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person, and therefore, as rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court, the sale transaction in favour of the appellant – original defendant was in clear breach and / or in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale transaction in favour of the appellant ­ original defendant can be said to be in breach of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. It is required to be noted that the Board of Revenue granted the benefit of provisions of Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 in favour of the appellant ­ original defendant and the Board permitted the appellant ­ original defendant to pay compounding fees and regularized the transaction. However, it is required to be noted that when the Board of Revenue granted the benefit of compounding under Section 13A(2), an order of ejection of the appellant ­ original defendant was already passed against him and Puran Singh, and the possession was already handed over to the respondent – original plaintiff from Puran Singh, who was found to be in actual physical possession of the land on 30.12.1980. Section 13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 would be applicable only in a case where an order of ejectment has been passed, but a person against whom an order of ejectment has been passed has not actually been ejected from the land transferred. In that view of the matter, no order of compounding in favour of the appellant ­ original defendant and /or even Puran Singh could have been passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of power under Section 13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and therefore, also the order passed by the Board of Revenue confirmed by the learned Single Judge permitting compounding was contrary to Section 13A(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and therefore, also the land transaction in question is hit by Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. [Para 10 & 11]

Question of Law

Whether the land transaction in favour of the appellant -­ original defendant was illegal and in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste of State of Punjab ?

Case Law Reference

  1. Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand, C.A. No.8425/2013 01.11.2018
  2. Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, (2018) 10 SCC 312
  3. Action Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244
  4. Marri Chandra Shekar Rao v. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130

Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2021; January 5, 2022

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Abhishek Gautam, AOR Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash, Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Mittal, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

Case Link : https://pdf.caselaw.in/sc/2022/01/1158/

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 2 Average: 5]