http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: JAILA SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1975

BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BHAGWATI, P.N. GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1436            1975 SCR  428  1976 SCC  (1) 602  CITATOR INFO :  F          1983 SC 130  (54,60)

ACT: Rajasthan  Colonisation  (Rajasthan Canal  Project  Pre-1955 Temporary  Tenants  Government Land  Allotment)  Conditions, 1971, Condition No. 3, and Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post-1955 Temporary Cultivation  Lease Holders  and other landless persons in the  Rajasthan  Canal Project   Area)   Rules,   1971,   Rules   2(1)(xiii)    and 3(2)--Permanent  allotment of land to tenants--Pre-1955  and post-1955  tenants, if form different  classes--Section,  15 and  15-A  of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955,  if  provide  any basis for classification Rajasthan  Colonisation Act, 1954, Sections 7 and  29--Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The  Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakra Project Government  Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1955 made under the provisions of the  Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, came into  effect  on 25th  December,  1955.   Under these  Rules  the  difference between pre-1947 and post-1947 tenants is negligible.  Under tile  Rajasthan  Colonisation (Gang  Canal  Lands  Permanent Allotment and Sales) Rules, 1956, the scale of allotment  is uniform  without any discrimination between various  classes of  persons  to  whom  land  may  be  allotted.   Under  the Rajasthan  Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project  Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1967 all post-1955 temporary cultivation  leases in the Colony area were  terminated  and all  the  lands  covered  by such  leases  reverted  to  the Government. Jaila Singh. the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1704 of  1974 was  allotted  50 bighas of ’uncommand land’  in  the  years 1956-57  and  1957-58  in the Ganga nagar  District  of  the Rajasthan State.  The area in which the land is situated was declared a Colony Area of the Rajasthan Canal Project tinder the  Rajasthan  Colonisation  Act  in  1960.   In  1967  the Rajasthan   Canal  Colonisation  (Rajasthan  Canal   Project Government  Land Allotment and Site) Rules, 1967  were  pro- mulgated and applications were invited for allotment of land under   those  rule,--,.   Jaila  Singh’s  application   for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

allotment  was  disposed of on 27-12-1969 by  allotting,  14 bighas and 14 bighas of land on permanent basis,.  In  State v.  Ramdhan A.i.R. 1973 Raj. 71, the latter part of Rule  16 and  Rule 19(a)(iii) i-eid with little 7(x) and (xi) of  the 1967  Rules were struck down.  Thev were struck down on  the ground  that  both the Bhakra Canal Project  Rules  and  the RIjasthLn (’anal Rules framed under the Act. had treated the unit   of  family  differently  and  cannot   therefore   be justified.    Thereafter,   two  sets   of   rules   called, respectively Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Pre-1955  Temporary  Tenants  (government  Land   Allotment) Conditions,  1971 ind the Rajasthan Colonisation  (Allotment of Government Land to Post-1955 Temporary Cultivation  Lease ’Holders ind Other- Landless Persons in the Rajasthan  Canal Project  Area) Rules. 1971 were promulgated.   Applications- were  again invited for allotment of land under-  the  Post- 1955 Rules and Jaila Singh was allotted another 10 bights of land.   The  rest  of the land originally  allotted  to  him reverted to the State.  He filed a writ petition before  the Rajasthan  High  Court challenging the Post-1955  Rules  ,is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Sahi Rant, the husband of the appellant in Civil Appeal  No. 1705  of  1974.  had been allotted 241 bighas  of  land  for temporary cultivation in Rajasthan Canal Area in  Ganganagar District.   He had also been allotted 12-1 bighas 2  command land’ in the year 1952 on a permanent basis and 6 bighas and 12  biswas of ’command land" and 4 bigha-, and 11 biswas  of ’uncommand  land’  for permanent cultivation.   These  lands were  included  in the Colony Arei of  the  Rajasthan  Canal Project in 1960. 429 After  the post-1955 Rule come into force the 24-1/2  bighas of  land was ordered to be resumed on the ground  that  Sahi Ram was not a landless person In the writ petition filed  by the  appellant,  the order of resumption was  challenged  as discriminatory. In both the writ partitions the contention on behalf of  the State  of Rajasthan was that, owing to the insertion  of  s. 15A  in  the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,  1955  Khatedari  rights could  not accrue to the tenants under s. 15(1) of the  said Act and ’the possession of such tenants was given protection who  were  holding since 15,10-53 and  thereafter  upto  the commencement of the Pre-1955 Conditions by making  permanent allotment under the Pre-1955 conditions".  The Single  Judge of the High Court accepted this contention and upheld  their validity  of the Pre-1955.  Conditions as well as the  Post- 1955  Rules.   He  took  the  view  that  the  question   of discrimination can arise only in respect of persons who  are similarly situated, that the pre-1955 tenants cannot be said to stand on the same footing as the post-1955 tenants in  as much  as  the  two classes of tenants  came  into  temporary cultivation at different periods of time and cannot be  said to be similarly situated.  On appeal, the Division Bench  of the  High Court dismissed the appeals even at the  admission stage.   These appeals have been preferred by special  leave granted by this Court. It  was:  contended for the appellants  that  discrimination between  the pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants is based on  the fact  that  (1) In the case of the former,  pet-sons  having more than 25 bighas could keep all the lands they had up  to the  ceiling  limit  and had to pay only for  the;  land  in excess  of  25 bighas ; (2) Even among them  persons  having less  than  25 bighas, whether below 15 or above  15  bighas could  get  land to enable them to have 25 bighas  and  they need  pay only for the excess over what they had. (3)  Post-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

1955  tenants  could not get anything if they  had  over  15 bighas and the%, had to pay for the land allotted to them to make up 25 bighas. Allowing the appeals, HELD : There is no nexus between the pre-1955 Conditions and post-1955  Rules  and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act  which  came into  force  on 15-10-1955.  Both sets of  leases  had  been cancelled by the relevant pre-1955 Condition and  post-1955, Rules  and  there  is no dispute that  the  pre-1955  leases cannot   be  cancelled  while  post-1955  leases  could   be cancelled.  The Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not concerned  with that   question.   Proviso  to  section  15  of   that   Act specifically provides that no Khatedari rights shall  accrue under  that  section to any tenant, to whom land is  or  has been  let out temporarily in Gang Canal, Bhakra, Chambal  or Jawai  project  area,  or any other area  notified  in  that behalf  by the State Government.  Admittedly  the  Rajasthan Canal  area  has  been included within  the  scope  of  this proviso  by  a  notification.  To make  matters  more  clear section  15A  also provides that the land in  the  Rajasthan Canal  area  leased  out on any terms  whatsoever  shall  be deemed  to have been let out temporarily within the  meaning of the poviso and no khatedari lights shall accrue or  shall be deemed ever to have accrued in any such land leased  Out. This  provision  thus applies to both pre-1955  as  well  as post-1955  leases.   Both  these leases stand  on  the  same footing and; therefore (lo not form different classes.   The reference  to sections 15 and 15A of the  Rajasthan  Tenancy Act  is  wholly  irrelevant.  Nor can it be  said  that  the lengthy   occupation  of  the  lands  provides  any   proper criterion for the distinction between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants.   There  is nothing to show how  long  before  15th October  1955 pre-1955 tenants were given  temporary  leases and in the absence of such material, it is impossible to see how  any  differentiation can be made between  pre-1955  and post-1955  tenants in the matter of permanent  allotment  of land.   Even  in  1967  when the 1967  Rules  were  made  no distinction was sought to be made between pre-1955 and post- 1955 tenants.  By that time many of post-1955 tenant:, would have been in possession for about 12 years ,Ind in 1971 they would  have beer, in possession for about 16 years.   It  is difficult  lo appreciate how it should make  any  difference from  the  point  of view of allotment of  land,  whether  a tenant has been in occupation for 16 years or 18 or 20 years and why differentiation should be made with reference to the date  when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into  force.   The classification must 430 have  a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.   There is no such nexus in this case.  As a result Condition No.  3 of  the Pre-1955 Conditions and the definition  of  landless person as contained in Rule 2(1)(xiii) as well as Rule  3(2) of  the Post-1955 Rules are void as they are  discriminatory under Art. 14 of the Constitution and they are struck  down. [435 D-H, 436A-C, 437F, 438E] Observation:Rajasthan  Colonisation Act,  1954,  practically provides  no  guidance with regard to the principles  to  be applied in the matter of  land. [432F]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  1704-1705 of 1974-. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 1-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

8-1974 of the High Court of Rajasthan in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 415 and 237 of 1974. G.   L.  Sanghi S. R. Srivastava, Manmohan Mridul and  Badri Dass  Sharma  for  the  appellants (in  C.  As.  Nos.  1704- 1705/74). Niren  De,  Attorney  General  of India,  S.  T.  Desai,  G. Kashliwal  and  S. M. Jain, for the respondents (in  C.  As. Nos. 1704-1705/74). J.   B. Badachanji and K. J. John, for the intervener (In C. As.  Nos. 1704-1705/74). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI,  J.  These appeals raise the question  of  the validity   of  certain  rules  made  under   the   Rajasthan Colonisation  Act,  1954.   The  facts  necessary  for   the decision of this case are as follows. Jaila Singh, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1704 of  1974 %,as  allotted  50 bighas of ’uncommand land’ in  the  years 1956-57  and  1957-58  in the  Ganganagar  District  of  the Rajasthan State.  The area in which the land is situate  was declared a Colony Area of the Rajasthan Canal Project  under the  Act  in  1960.  In  1967  the  ’Rajasthan  Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules,  1967 were promulgated and applications were  invited for  allotment  of land under those  rules.   Jaila  Singh’s application  for allotment was disposed of on 27-12-1969  by allotting  14  bighas  and 14 biswas of  land  on  permanent basis.  These 1967 Rules were the subject matter of  certain writ  petitions before the Rajasthan High Court which  ended with  the decision of that Court in State v.  Ramadhan  (AIR 1973   Raj  71)  striking  down  certain  of  those   Rules. Thereafter  two sets of rules called respectively  Rajasthan Colonisation  (Rajasthan  Canal Project  Pre-1955  Temporary Tenants Government Land Allotment) Conditions, 1971 and  the Rajasthan  Colonisation  (Allotment of  Government  Land  to Post-1955  Temporary  Cultivation Lease  Holders  and  Other Landless Persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1971 were promulgated.  Applications were again invited  for allotment of land under the Post-1955 Rules and Jaila  Singh was  allotted  another 10 bighas of land.  The rest  of  the land  originally allotted to him reverted to the State.   He filed  a  writ  petition before  the  Rajasthan  High  Court challenging  the Post-1955 Rules as violative of Article  14 of the Constitution.  He prayed that Rajasthan Coloni- 431 sation  Act,  1954 may be declared to be illegal or  in  the alternative  the  Post-1955  Rules may  be  declared  to  be violative  of  Article  14 of the constitution  and  for  an appropriate order in respect of the lands allotted to him. Sahi Ram, the husband of the appellant in, Civil Appeal  No. 1705  of 1974, had been allotted 24 1/2 bighas of  land  for temporary cultivation in Rajasthan Canal Area in  Ganganagar District.   He  had  also been allotted  12  1/2  bighas  of ’command land’ in the year 1952 oil a permanent basis and  6 bighas  and 12 biswas of ’command land’ and 4 bighas and  11 biswas of uncommand land’ for permanent cultivation.   These lands  were included in the Colony Area the Rajasthan  Canal Project in 1960.  After the post-1955 Rules came into  force the  24-1/2 bighas of land was ordered to be resumed on  the -round that Sahi Ram was not a landless person.  In the writ petition filed by the appellant the contentions and  prayers were the same as in Jaila Singh’s case.  We shall deal  with them at the appropriate places in so far as they related, to matters raised in the appeal. In  both the writ petitions the contention on behalf of  the State  of  Rajasthan  was that owing  to  the  insertion  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

section  15A  in the Rajasthan Tenency Act,  1955  Khatedari rights  could not accrue to the tenants under section  15(1) of  the  said Act and ’the possession of  such  tenants  was given  protection  who  were  holding  since  15-10-55   and thereafter upto the commencement of the Pre-1955  Conditions by making permanent allotment under the Pre-1955 Conditions. The  various  impugned  rules  were  contended  not  to   be discriminatory. Justice Gupta of the Rajasthan High Court who heard the  two writ  petitions  filed by Jaila Singh and Dhapi  Bai,  in  a batch of 340 writ petitions, upheld the validity of the Pre- 1955 Conditions as well as the Post-1955 Rules.  He took the view that the question of discrimination can. arise only  in respect of persons who are similarly situated, that the pre- 1955 tenants cannot be said to stand on the same footing  as the post-1955 tenants inasmuch as the two classes of tenants came into temporary cultivation at different periods of time and cannot be said to be similarly situated.  The fact  that the pre-1955 tenants had been continuously in possession for a longer period was held to make them a separate class  from the  temporary  cultivators who came into  possession  after October 15, 1955.  The contention of the Rajasthan State  on the  basis of section 15A of the Rajasthan Tenancy  Act  was also  accepted.  On appeal against the decision  of  Justice Gupta a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeals even at the admission stage. Before we proceed to consider the various contentions it  is necessary to set out certain important provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 came into force on 17th December,  1954.  It defined ’tenant’ as meaning any  person holding  land  in a colony and  including  predecessors  and succcssors-in-interest   and  transferees.    ’Colony’   was defined  as  meaning any area 1 to which the  Act  shall  be applied.  Section 7 of the Act reads 432 .lm15 "7. Issue of statement of conditions of tenancy.- (1)  The  State Government may grant land in colony  to  any person on such conditions as may be prescribed. (2)  The   State  Government  may  issue  a   statement   or statements of the conditions on which it is willing to grant land in a colony to tenants. (3)  Where  such statements of conditions have been  issued, the  Collector  may,  subject to the control  of  the  State Government, allot land to any person, to be held subject  to such conditions contained in the statement issued under sub- section (2) of this section as the Collector may, by written order declare to be applicable to the case. (4)  No  person shall be deemed to be a tenant, or  to  have any right or title in the land allotted to him until such  a written  order’ has been passed and he has taken  possession of  the an with the permission of the Collector,  and  after possession  has  been  so taken, the (,rant  shall  be  held subject to the conditions declared applicable thereto." Section 28 reads "28.   Power  to make rules.-The State  Government  may,  by notification  in the Official Gazette make  rules  generally for carrying into effect the provisions and purposes of this Act  and in particular for all matters which are  prescribed thereunder." It  would be noticed that there is practically  no  guidance provided  in  the Act with regard to the  principles  to  be applied in the matter of allotment of land. Under the provisions of that Act the Rajasthan  Colonisation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

(Bhakra  Project  Government Land Allotment &  Sale)  Rules, 1955 were made and came into effect on 25th December,  1955. The  extent  of  land  which  could  be  allotted  to  those cultivating Government lands since before December 31,  1947 was  50  bighas if the Joint family consists of  adult  male members not exceeding five and 15 bighas of additional  area per additional member if the number of members is in  excess of five.  In the case of those cultivating lands since after 31st December 1947,  25 bighas could be allotted for a joint family consisting of three adult male members and 15  bighas for  every adult male members in excess of three.  Thus  the difference   between  pre-1947  and  post-1947  tenants   is negligible. Under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment  and Sale) Rules, 1956 the scale of  allotment  is uniform  without any discrimination between various  classes of persons to whom land may be allotted. 433 Under  the Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan  Canal  Project Government  Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1967  all  post- 1955  temporary cultivation leases in the Colony  Area  were terminated and all the lands covered by such leases reverted to the Government.  Rule 16 reads :               "16.   A joint family shall, for the  purposes               of  existing holding and of allotment of  land               under these Rules, be deemed to be one  person               and dealt with accordingly.  No separation  or               partition  affected  after the  15th  October,               1955 will be taken into consideration." Under  Rule 19 Bhakra landless persons were entitled  to  15 bighas  in  each case ; so also  landless  tenants.   Tenure tenants  who held land less than 15 bighas in  their  khatas and  the  whole or part thereof was with a  sub-tenant,  not liable  to ejectment, were entitled to allotment of so  much of Government land as would render their khatas equal to  15 bighas.   Here  again  there was no  discrimination  in  the matter  of  allotment of land among the various  classes  of persons to whom land may be allowed.  After Rule-, 16 and 19 read  with  Rule  7(x)  and (xi) were  struck  down  by  the Rajasthan High Court, these Rules were repealed and the Pre- 1955 Conditions and Post-1955 Rules were promulgated. The Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Pre-1955 Temporary  Tenants  Government Land  Allotment)  Conditions, 1971  came into effect on 3-2-1971.  A  ’pre-1955  temporary tenant’ was defined as a person who is resident of Rajasthan since  before  the 1st day of April, 1955 and who  has  been holding and been in possession of temporary cultivation land continuously  since  before the 15th day of  October,  1955, upto  the date of commencement of these Conditions  (portion not  necessary for the purposes of this case omitted).   All temporary  leases of Government lands of pre-1955  temporary tenant-,  were cancelled.  A temporary tenant  holding  more than  25 bighas of command temporary cultivation land  could be allotted up to the ceiling limit, the ceiling limit being 50  bighas.  A temporary tenant holding less than 25  bighas may  be  allotted  the land in his  possession  as  well  as further extent of land making the total upto 25 bighas.   In the case of persons having more that 25 bighas no price  was chargeable for allotment upto 25 bighas.  But persons having less than 25 bighas bad to pay the price for lands  allotted to  them  to make up 25 bighas, that is, land in  excess  of what they already had.  The effect of these provisions  was, to  take a concrete example, that if a man had 30 bighas  of land the whole of it would be allotted to him.  If he had 60 bighas  of land 10 bighas will be taken away.  He will  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

to pay the value of the land in excess of 25 bighas.   Where a  person  had less than 25 bighas-whether it is  14  or  16 bighas-he will be given another 1 1 or 9 bighas as the  case may  be  and he need not make any payment for  the  land  he already had- but need pay only for the land newly  allotted. Thus a person holding lands in excess of 25 bighas was at  a distinct advantage in that he could keep the land in  excess of 25 bighas and upto 50 bighas by paying the value only for the excess, compared to the man who had 434 less than 25 bighas who could be given land upto 25  bighas. The discrimination between the two classes is obvious and no justification  has been put forward nor can be  put  forward for this discrimination. The Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land  to Post-1955  Temporary  Cultivation Leases Holders  and  Other Landless Persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1971,  which  came  into  effect  on  4-5-1971  described  a landless person in r. 2(1 xiii)    as follows               "  ’Landless Person’ means a person  which  is               resident Rajasthan since before the 1st day of               April,  1955 and is by profession a bona  fide               agriculturist   or  bona   fide   agricultural               laborer and whose primary source of income  is               agriculture.                Provided  that such person neither holds  any               tenure  land anywhere in excess of  15  bighas               nor  is he a sub-tenant of any such  land  (in               excess of 1) bighas) from which lie not liable               to  ejectment  under  the  provisions  of  the               Rajasthan  Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act  3                             of  1955) or under any other law for the  time               being  in  force in the in which the  land  is               situated;  nor lie is entitled  for  permanent               allotment  of  15 bighas or  more  land  under               other rules, conditions or law." A landless person coming under these rules could be allotted up  to 25 bighas provided that if such person holds or is  a sub-tenant of any land anywhere, he will be allotted only so much Government land as to-either with his existing  holding does  not exceed 25 There is a proviso that such land  shall be  allotted to him only such land is available adjacent  to his existing holding or in the same village.  The result  of this  rule  read with the definition person is that  if  lie holds  land anywhere in excess of 15bighas will not  at  any further  allotment.  In other words if he had 14  bighas  of land  he may be allotted 11 bighas whereas if he has got  16 bighas of land he will not be allotted any further land. The discrimination  against him as against the  pre-1955  tenant who  had less than 25 bighas is apparent.  The  latter  will get  even if he had already 16 bighas.  The word  ’anywhere’ in  the definition of the term ’landless person’ as well  as in  the rule relating to eligibility for allotment has  been the  subject  matter  of  some controversy  but  it  is  not necessary to resolve it for the purpose of these cases.  The contrast  between the Pre-1955 Conditions and the Post  1955 Rules is thus apparent.  The only justification put  forward oil  behalf  of  the Government before the  High  Court  was that15A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 made a difference and  the  learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan  High  Court held  that the length of the occupation of the lands by  the pre-1955   and   post-1955tenants  provided  a   basis   for classification. 435

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

Before  us  the  only questions argued  were  regarding  the discrimination  between the pre-1955 and  post-1955  tenants based on the fact that               1.    In  the  case  of  the  former,  persons               having more than 25 bighas could keep all  the               lands they had up to the ceiling limit and had               to  pay  only  for the land in  excess  of  25               bighas.                2.   Even among them persons having less than               25 bighas, whether below 15 or above 15 bighas               could get land to    enable  them to  have  25               bighas  and they need pay only for the  excess               over what they had.               3.    Post-1955 tenants could not get anything               if they had over 15 bighas and they had to pay               for  the land allotted to them to make  up  25               bighas, These contentions are so substantial and the  discrimination so striking and the justification at-tempted so feeble  that we  have to hesitation in accepting them.  We  have  already referred to some of them We  are  unable  to  see  the  nexus  between  the  pre-1955 Conditions and post-1955 Rules and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which came into force on 15-10-1955.  In these cases we  are concerned with the validity of the rules  relating  to   the allotment of Government land which had been  (riven       on temporary leases to various persons whether before 1955 or after 1955.   Both  sets  of  leases had  been  cancelled  by  the relevant  pre-1955 Condition and post-1955 Rule and there is no dispute that     the pre-1955 leases cannot be  cancelled while  post-1955 leases could be cancelled.   The  Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not concerned with that question.  Proviso to section  15  of  that  Act  specifically  provides  that  no Khatedari  rights  shall accrue under that  section  to  any tenant,  to whom land is or has been let out temporarily  in Gang  Canal, Bhakra, Chambal or Jawai project area,  or  any other area notified in that behalf by the State  Government. Admittedly the Rajasthan Canal area has been included within the  scope  of  this proviso by  a  notification.   To  make matters  more clear section 15A also provides that the  land in  the  Rajasthan  Canal  area  leased  out  on  any  terms whatsoever shall be deemed to have been let out  temporarily within  the meaning of the proviso earlier mentioned and  no khatedari  rights  shall accrue or shall be deemed  ever  to ’have  accrued  in any such land leased  out  as  aforesaid. This  provision  thus applies to both pre-1955  as  well  as post-1955  leases.   Both  these leases stand  on  the  same footing and therefore do not form different classes. The  reference  to  sections 15 and  15A  of  the  Rajasthan Tenancy  Act in deciding the questions that arise  in  these cases is therefore wholly irrelevant.  Nor are we  satisfied that  the  length of occupation of the  lands  provides  any proper  criterion for the distinction between  pre-1955  and post-1955 tenants.  There is nothing to show 436 how  long  before 15th October, 1955 pre-1955  tenants  were given temporary leases and in the absence of such  material, it is impossible to see how any differentiation can be  made between  pre-1955  and post-1955 tenants in  the  matter  of permanent  allotment  of land.  Even in 1967 when  the  1967 Rules were made no distinction was sought to be made between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants.  By that time many of  post- 1955  tenants  would have been in possession  for  about  12 years     and in 1971 they would have been in possession for about 16 years.     It  is  difficult to appreciate  how  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

should make any difference from    the  point  of  view   of allotment of land, whether tenant has been in     occupation for  16  years  or 18 or 20 years  and  why  differentiation should be made with reference to the date when the Rajasthan Tenancy  Act  came into force.  The 1967  Rules,  no  doubt, provide   for  cancellation  of  all   post-1955   temporary cultivation   leases  but  in  actual  effect  it  made   no difference.    Under  those  Rules  persons   eligible   for allotment  were landless tenant--,.  ’Landless  tenant’  was defined as ’a bona fide agriculturist who is a resident  of’ Rajasthan since before 1st April, 1955 and who cultivates or can reasonably be expected to cultivate land personally  but who does not hold any land in his own name or in the name of any  member of his joint family and who is not a  sub-tenant of  any  land, owner or land holder  holding  tenure  khatas under proprietary, mauroosee or khatedari rights and is  not liable  to ejectment under the provisions of  the  Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 or under any other law for the time  being in  force in the area in which the land. is situate  or  who holds  only  a fragment or land measuring 1,5  bighas’.   No distinction was made between pre-1955 and post-1955  tenants in  the matter of allotment.  Provided an agriculturist  had less  than 15 bighas be was entitled to allotment  of  land. The allotment was also to an extent sufficient to make up 25 bighas  of  ’command land’.  Here again no  distinction  was made between post-1955 and pre-1955 tenants.  Nor was  there any difference in the sale price to be paid by the different classes of allottees. In State v. Raindhan (supra) only the latter part of Rule 16 and  Rule  19 (a) (iii) read with Rule 7 (x) and  (xi)  were struck,  clown.  Rule 7 (x) reserved land for  allotment  to landless tenants belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  upto 1 lakh acres to be allotted at the rate  of  15 bighas per family and Rule 7 (xi) for other landless tenants upto  50,000 acres to be allotted at the rate of  15  bighas per  family.  They were struck down only on the ground  that both the Bhakra Canal Project Rules and the Rajasthan  Canal Rule-, had been framed under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954  but  they treated the unit of family  differently  and cannot  therefore  be justified.  By the same  reasoning  no distinction  can  be  made between  pre-1955  and  post-1955 tenants by Rules made under the same Act. One of the arguments attempted before us, though it was  not pleaded  before  the Rajasthan High Court, was that  in  the case  of  the  post-1955 tenants a smaller area  had  to  be allotted because of the pressure for land.  We have  already pointed out that the difference in the period of  occupation between  the pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants could not be  of such an extent as to justify allotment of larger extent of 437 land  to the pre-1955 tenants than to the post-1955  tenants nor  for the discrimination even among the pre-1955  tenants between those holding more than 25 bighas and those  holding less than 25 bighas.  If the Rajasthan Government wanted  to act  fairly  by all classes of residents of  Rajasthan  they could  very  well have omitted portions in  the  1967  Rules found  objectionable by the Rajasthan High Court and  there- fore  struck down and there would have been nothing more  to say.  The striking down of Rules 16 and 19 of the 1967 Rules did not necessitate the promulgation of two wholly new  sets of  rules.  In that case only 15 bighas of land  would  have been available to each allottee and there would have been no discrimination  between  one class of persons  and  another. There would also have been greater extent of land  available for  allotment to a larger number of persons at the rate  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

15 bighas each.  One of the justifications pleaded on behalf of the State of Rajasthan for the definition of the landless tenants in the post-1955 Rules as persons holding less  than 15  bighas of land was that 15 bighas was a viable unit,  In that  case  it  is all the more  reason  why  all  allottees whether pre-1955 or post-1955 should get 15 bighas.  We  are unable  to see any justification for treating  the  pre-1955 and  post-1955  tenants  differently.   What  prompted   the Rajasthan State to do so in 1971 when they did not do so  in 1967 and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in  regard to the 1967 Rules did not compel them to do so is beyond our comprehension.   We  are not able to accept  the  contention that  they  belonged  to two  different  classes.   By  that standard  any  arbitrary difference could be  fixed  and  it could  be said that persons who get temporary leases  before that date belonged to one class and the persons who had been allotted land after that date formed another class.  We have already  shown  that  the  Rajasthan  Tenancy  Act  has   no relevance  at  all  to the decision  of  this  question  and therefore 15-10-1955, the date on which it came into  force, has no relevance to the classification attempted by pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants.  The classification must have a nexus with  the object sought to be achieved.  We can see no  such nexus in this case.      We thus find that the definition of the ’landless tenants’ as well        as   the   rules   for allotment in the post-1955 Rules as compared to the pre 1955 conditions are discriminatory and unjustifiable. As  regards the discrimination in the matter of  payment  of price  between  the pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants,  it  was urged on behalf of the State of Rajasthan that this was  not urged  in  the writ petitions of the two appellants  and  so cannot  be gone into by this Court.  The question  of  price has  been raised in the two writ petitions but it was  on  a different  aspect and not on the question that the  pre-1955 tenants  did  not  have to pay  any  price  while  post-1955 tenants  had  to do so.  But it has been argued  before  the learned  Single Judge, and he has dealt with  it  apparently without  any objection being taken to it on the part of  the State of Rajasthan.  This question of price is not mentioned as one of the matters which were raised before the  Division Bench  which  beard  the appeal.  We find  it  difficult  to conceive of the appellants having given up that plea  before the  Appellate  Bench having argued it  before  the  learned Single  Judge. is urged on behalf of the State of  Rajasthan that there may be reasons 438 why  pre-1955 tenants arc treated differently in the  matter of  payment of price.  If there were any, they Were not  put forward  before the learned Single Judge.  But as  materials regarding it are not available before us, we propose to  say nothing  about it.  But we may point out that, as the  rules stand,  there seems to be some discrimination in the  matter of  price  between pre-1955 and post-1955 tenants,  in  that pre-1955 tenants, who hold land exceeding 25 bighas, have to pay  nothing  for  land  upto  25  bighas,  while  post-1955 tenants,  who  hold land less than 15 bighas,  have  to  pay price  for land which may be allotted to them so as to  make up 25 bighas.  We are mentioning this only so that the State may look into the matter of price and set it right to  avoid any  discrimination.  There seem to be no difficulty at  all in  all this because none of the tenants, whether  they  are pre-1955 or post-1955 tenants, have any vested rights, It is the duty of the State to treat fairly all classes of tenants in  the Rajasthan Canal Area whether pre-1955  or  post-1955 tenants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

No arguments were advanced regarding the validity of the Act and  we  think rightly so.  The arguments were  confined  to Condition   3  and  proviso  to  Condition  9  of   pre-1955 Conditions and Rules 2(1) (xiii.) and 3(2) of the  post-1955 Rules.  In effect appellants bad no objection to paying  for extra land to be allotted to them.  They object only to  the discrimination  against  them as compared  to  the  pre-1955 tenants. In  the result we hold that Condition No. 3 of the  pre-1955 Conditions   and  the  definition  of  landless  person   as contained  in  Rule 2(1)(xiii) as well as Rule 3(2)  of  the Post-1955  Rules are void as they are  discriminatory  under Article 14 of the Constitution and they are struck down.  It is  open  to the State to frame new rules applying  to  both pre-1955  and post-1955 tenants without  any  discrimination between them. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.   The appellants  will  get  their  costs  from  the  respondents, hearing fee one set. Appeals allowed.  V.M.K. 439