Mukhtiyar Singh Vs. State

Mukhtiyar Singh vs State

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 27, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767339

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/767339
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: R.S. Kejriwal and; R.R. Yadav, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 27, 1995
Case Number: D.B. Spl. Appeal No. 84, 119, 220, 121, 130 205, 996, 997, 1098, 1140 and 1144 of 1986, 1987 and 199
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Articls 14, 19 (1) (F) and 21 and Rajaathan Colonization Act, 1954--Sections 13 & ISA--Validity of--Section 13 enacted on basis of public policy--Restrictions on transfer of tenancy rights reasonable--Section 13 A provides for regularisation of transfer on certain terms & conditions--...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukhtiyar Singh

Respondent

State

Legal References

Reported In: 1995(1)WLN678

Excerpt

constitution of india - articls 14, 19 (1) (f) and 21 and rajaathan colonization act, 1954--sections 13 & isa--validity of--section 13 enacted on basis of public policy--restrictions on transfer of tenancy rights reasonable--section 13 a provides for regularisation of transfer on certain terms & conditions--held, section 13 & section 13a are not violative of provisions of constitution;section 13 has been enacted on the basis of public policy. the restrictions imposed for the transfer of tenancy rights are reasonable;section 13 of the act is valid and not violative of the aforesaid articles of the constitution of india. in our opinion, section 13-a which provides for regularisation of transfers on certain terms and conditions is also not violative of any article of constitution of india;special appeal dismissed - .....have filed these special appeals under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance. as common questions of law are involved in these appeals, they are decided by one judgment.3. we have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the learned single judge and also the record of the case. in our opinion section 13 (1) of the act, does not create any absolute bar for the transfer of rights or interest in the. lands but it provides that no tenant shall transfer his rights or interests vested in him by or under the act without the consent in writing of the collector, meaning thereby that a tenant can transfer the land if permitted by the collector. sub-section (2) of section 13 provides that any transfer in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall be void. in our opinion, section 13 has been enacted on the basis of public policy. the restrictions imposed for the transfer of tenancy rights are reasonable. the validity of this section has already been upheld by this court in the judgment reported in 1984 r.l.r., 456, vedparkash v state of rojasthan. we agree with the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment and hold that section 13 of the act is valid and not violative of the aforesaid articles of the constitution of india. in our opinion, section 13-a which provides for regularisation of transfers on certain terms and conditions is also not violative of any article of constitution of india. there is no force in these appeals. consequently, they are dismissed.4. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

R.R. Yadav, J.

1. The petitioner-appellants challenged the vires of Section 13 and 13 A of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'),' before the learned Single Judge by filing seperate writ petitions on the ground that they are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(F) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The learned Single Judge vide his common judgment dated 24.2.1986, dismissed the writ petitions and held that the aforesaid Sections are valid. Being aggrieved with the said order the petitioner-appellants have filed these Special Appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. As common questions of law are Involved in these appeals, they are decided by one judgment.

3. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also the record of the case. In our opinion Section 13 (1) of the Act, does not create any absolute bar for the transfer of rights or interest in the. lands but It provides that no tenant shall transfer his rights or interests vested in him by or under the Act without the consent In writing of the collector, meaning thereby that a tenant can transfer the land if permitted by the Collector. Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 provides that any transfer in contravention of Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 shall be void. In our opinion, Section 13 has been enacted on the basis of public policy. The restrictions imposed for the transfer of tenancy rights are reasonable. The validity of this Section has already been upheld by this Court In the judgment reported in 1984 R.L.R., 456, Vedparkash V State of Rojasthan. We agree with the reasons given In the aforesaid judgment and hold that Section 13 of the Act is valid and not violative of the aforesaid articles of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, Section 13-A which provides for regularisation of transfers on certain terms and conditions is also not violative of any article of Constitution of India. There is no force in these appeals. Consequently, they are dismissed.

4. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1995 Same Parties Mukhtiyar Singh vs State Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge R.S. Kejriwal and; R.R. Yadav, JJ.

Tenancy