http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KISHAN SINGH ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1992

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1946            1992 SCR  (3) 748  1992 SCC  (3) 696        JT 1992 (4)   413  1992 SCALE  (2)132

ACT:      Rajasthan   Colonisation  Act,  1954-Section   2(i)(a)- Notification dated 30.5.1978 issued under-Judicial notice of casual manner of drafting-manifest intention of  Government- Construction.      Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954-Sections 22,  2(i)(a)- Notification   dated   30.5.1978   appointing   Colonisation Tehsildars to perform and exercise the powers of  Collector- Validity of.      Interpretation of Statutes-Notification issued under  a statute Manifest intention of Government-Construction-Method of iron-out the creases-Permissible.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant-government issued a  notification  dated 30.5.1978   under   Section   2(i)(a)   of   the   Rajasthan Colonisation   Act,   1954   appointing   the   Colonisation tehsildars to perform the functions and exercise the  powers of the Collector under Section 22 of the Act. The  Colonisation Tehsildars initiated  proceedings  against various persons under section 22 of the Act and also  passed orders of eviction from the lands under their possession.      The  aggrieved persons challenged the  proceedings  and the  orders of eviction before the High Court  filling  writ petitions  under  Article  226/227 of  the  Constitution  of India.   They  contended  before the  High  Court  that  the notification  dated 30.5.1978 was vague, ambiguous  and  did not  confer any powers or functions of the  Collector  under Section  22  of  the Act on the  Tehsildars;  and  that  the proceedings  under  Section 22 of the Act initiated  by  the Tehsildars were inherently without jurisdiction and as  such were liable to be quashed.      The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions.      The appeals preferred by the State were dismissed by  a Division                                                   749 Bench of the High Court.      Hence these appeals were filed by the State by  special leave against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.      On   the  question,  whether  the  notification   dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

30.5.1978  issued  under section 2(i)(a)  of  the  Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 validly conferred the powers and  the functions   of  the  Collector  under  the  Act   upon   the Colonisation Tehsildars, allowing the appeals of the  State, this Court.      HELD: 1.01. The notification dated May 30, 1978 is  not happily  worded.   It shows the casual manner in  which  the government-documents  are drafted.  However, the wording  of the  notification fully conveys the intention of  the  State Government. [753G]      1.02.  The manifest intention of the government,  which can  be spelled-out from the notification, is that  all  the powers  under Section 22 of the Act have been delegated  and conferred  on  the Colonisation Tehsildars in the  State  of Rajasthan.   The expression ‘such’ used in the  notification twice, only indicates that the Colonisation Tehsildars,  who have  been  given  all the powers  of  the  Collector  under Section  22 of the Act, may exercise ‘such’ of these  powers as  are  necessary to be exercised in a  given  case  before them. [754D]      2.01.   Section   22  of  the  Act   provides   summary proceedings   for  the  ejectment  of   tress-passers   from government lands. Various sub-sections of Section 22 provide a  scheme  for  getting the  trespass  on  government  lands vacated.   In the nature of the provisions of Section 22  of the  Act the proceedings under various sub-sections have  to be initiated and action taken by the same authority.  [753H- 754A]      2.02. The proceedings under section 22 of the Act being quasi  judicial the authority entrusted with the  powers  of the  Collector has to be invested with the powers under  all the sub-sections to enable the said authority to proceed  in accordance with the scheme of the Act.  In that view of  the matter  there is no scope for conferring some of the  powers under Section 22 on the Tehsildars and remaining to be  left with the Collector. [754B]      2.03.  The notification dated May 30,  1978  appointing the  Colonisation  Tehsildars in the State of  Rajasthan  to perform the functions and to                                                   750 exercise the powers of the Collector under Section 22 of the Act is legal and valid. [754F]      3. While dealing with a notification it is  permissible to iron-out the creases to clarify the manifest intention of the State Government in issuing the notification. [754E]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.  4209 to 4226 of 1991.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  12.9.1989  of  the Rajasthan High Court In D.B.C.S.A. 1208/86, 174/87, 1209/86, 1212/86, 1214, 1230, 1233/86, 60/87, 1010, 1204, 1215, 1220, 1206, 1217, 1203/86, 139/87, 1219/86 and 142 of 1987.      Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant.      P.H.  Parekh, Ms. Chetna Anand, Goodwill  Indeevar  and Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwat for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KULDIP  SINGH,  J.  The  Rajasthan  Government   issued notification dated May 30, 1978 under Section 2(i)(a) of the Rajasthan  Colonisation Act, 1954 (the Act)  appointing  the Colonisation   Tehsildars  to  perform  the  functions   and exercise the powers of the collector under Section 22 of the Act.   The short question for our determination  is  whether

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

the  said notification, validly confers the powers  and  the functions   of  the  Collector  under  the  Act   upon   the Colonisation Tehsildars.      Section  2(i)(a) and Section 22 of the Act,  which  are relevant, are reproduced hereunder:-          "Section  2 (i)(a)-‘Collector’ means the  Collector          of the district and includes-          (a)  Any officer appointed by the State  Government          to perform all or any of the functions and exercise          all  or  any of the powers of the  Collector  under          this Act.          22. Unauthorised occupation of land and  re-entry.-          (1) Any person who occupied or continues to  occupy          any land in a                                                   751          colony to which he has no right or title or without          lawful authority shall be regarded a trespasser and          may be summarily evicted therefrom by the Collector          at  any  time  at  his  own  motion  or  upon   the          application   of  an  aggrieved  person  at   whose          disposal such land has been placed; and any  crops,          trees  and  buildings or any  other  constructions,          erected  or anything deposited on such land  shall,          if  not removed within such reasonable time as  the          Collector  may  from  time  to  time  fix  for  the          purpose, be liable to be forfeited to the State and          to be disposed of as the Collector may direct:          Provided  that  the  Collector  may,  in  lieu   of          ordering  the  forfeiture of any such  building  or          other  construction,  order the demolition  of  the          whole or any part thereof.          (2) Such trespasser shall further be liable to pay,          for each agricultural year during the whole or  any          part  whereof  he  has been  in  such  unauthorised          occupation of the land, a penalty which may  extend          to  fifty times the annual rent, or assessment,  as          the case may be, for the first act of trespass.  In          the  case  of each subsequent act of  trespass,  he          shall, by the order or the Collector, be liable  to          commitment  to  civil prison for a term  which  may          extend  to three months and to pay penalty  to  the          extent  as aforesaid.  The amount of  such  penalty          shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.          Before  taking proceedings for eviction under  sub-          section (1), the Collector shall cause to be served          on   the  person  reported  to  be   occupying   or          continuing to occupy land without lawful authority,          a notice specifying such land and calling on him to          appear and show cause why he should not be  evicted          therefrom.          (4) In any of the following cases namely-          (i)  where the trespasser neither vacates the  land          nor  makes  appearance in response  to  the  notice          issued under sub-section 3;or          (ii)   where  in  response  to  such,  notice   the          trespasser  does  not  vacate the  land  and  makes          appearance but-                                                        752          (a) does not show any cause; or          (b)  makes  any representation  which  is  rejected          after such enquiry and hearing as may be  necessary          in the circumstances of the case;          the Collector shall, unless in the case covered  by          clause  (ii)  above the  trespasser  undertakes  to          vacate  the land with in a week’s time and  vacates

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

        it   within  such  time,  order  removal   of   the          trespasser  from  such  land and  shall  remove  or          depute any person to remove him therefrom and  take          possession thereof.’      The notification dated May 30, 1978 issued by the State Government under Section 2(i)(a) of the Act reads as under:-          "In exercise of the powers conferred by  sub-clause          (a)  of  clause (1) of Section 2 of  the  Rajasthan          Colonisation Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act No. XXVII  of          1954),  the  State Government hereby  appoints  all          Colonisation  Tehsildars  of the State  to  perform          such  functions  and to exercise "such  powers"  of          Collector  under  Section  22 of this  Act  in  the          villages specified  as ‘Colony’ from time  to  time          under this Act and are falling in their  respective          jurisdiction."      The   Colonisation  Tehsildars  initiated   proceedings against various persons under section 22 of the Act and also passed  orders  of  eviction  from  the  lands  under  their possession.   The  aggrieved  persons  challenged  the  said proceedings and the orders of eviction before the  Rajasthan High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.  The only ground of attack before the High Court was that the notification dated May 30,  1978 was  vague,  ambiguous  and did not  confer  any  powers  or functions  of the collector under Section 22 of the  Act  on the   Tehsildars.    According  to   the   petitioners   the proceedings  under  Section 22 of the Act initiated  by  the Tehsildars were inherently without jurisdiction and as  such were liable to be quashed.  The learned single Judge by  his judgment dated February 11, 1986 accepted the contention  of the petitioners and allowed the writ petitions.  The special appeals  preferred by the State of Rajasthan were  dismissed on  September 12, 1989 by a Division Bench of the  Rajasthan High  Court.  These appeals by the State  of  Rajasthan  are against  the  judgment  of the Division Bench  of  the  High Court.                                                   753 The  learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions on  the following reasoning:-          "In the present case it is not necessary to  decide          the   larger  question  as  to  the   validity   of          delegation of the powers of a Collector exercisable          under  Section  22  of  the Act  as  I  accept  the          contention of the petitioner that the  notification          dated  the  30th May, 1978 does not  authorise  the          Colonisation Tehsildars to perform or exercise  all          functions  and  powers  of  the  Collectors   under          section 22 of the Act.  The word ‘such’ used  twice          in  this section to qualify the  words  ‘functions’          and  ‘powers’ is neither a  superfluous  expression          nor  it  is synonymous with the word-  "All".   The          word  ‘such’ as an adjective is used for  something          that  has  been stated earlier or which  is  to  be          specified or exemplified in the portion which is to          follow.  The word ‘such’ means of the kind like the          kind or the same kind.  The word ‘such’ is used  to          avoid   repetition   of  the   expression   already          indicated  described or specified or to denote  the          context  which is about to be indicated,  suggested          or  exemplified.  In the context of Section  22  of          the  Act  it  is  not  possible  to  construe   the          expression  "to  perform  SUCH  FUNCTIONS  and   to          exercise SUCH POWERS of the Collector under Section          22  of this Act "to mean" to perform ALL  FUNCTIONS

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

        and to exercise ALL POWERS  of the Collectors under          section 22 of the Act." (Emphasis added).  The  use          of the word ‘such’ was meant to carve out only some          functions  and powers of the Collector  exercisable          under  section 22 of the Act but it appears due  to          some  mistake  on  the part of  the  draftsman  the          functions and powers intended to be so specified in          the notification were left out."      The  Division Bench of the High Court upheld the  above reasoning  and  dismissed the special appeals filed  by  the State Government      It is no doubt correct that the notification dated  May 30,  1978 is not happily worded.  It only shows  the  casual manner  in which the government-documents are  drafted.   We are,   however,  of  the  view  that  the  wording  of   the notification  fully  conveys  the  intention  of  the  State Government.   Section  22  of  the  Act   provides   summary proceedings for the ejectment of                                                   754 tress-passers from government lands. Various sub-sections of Section  22  provides a scheme for getting the  trespass  on government  lands vacated.  In the nature of the  provisions of Section 22 of the Act the proceedings under various  sub- sections  have to be initiated and action taken by the  same authority.   The  proceedings under section  22 of  the  Act being quasi judicial the authority entrusted with the powers of  the Collector has to be invested with the  powers  under all the sub-sections to enable the said authority to proceed in  accordance with the scheme of the Act.  In that view  of the  matter  there is no scope for conferring  some  of  the powers  under Section 22 on the tehsildars and remaining  to be  left  with the Collector.  The High Court  assumed  that part  of  the powers and functions of  the  Collector  under Section 22 of the Act can be delegated under Section 2(i)(a) of  the Act.  It was on that assumption that the High  Court came  to the conclusion that the powers and functions  under Section  22 which were being conferred upon  the  tehsildars should  have been mentioned before or after the word  "such" in the notification.  We do not agree with the High  Court’s reasoning.  The manifest intention of the government,  which can  be spelled-out from the notification, is that  all  the powers  under Section 22 of the Act have been delegated  and conferred  on  the colonisation tehsildars in the  State  of Rajasthan.  The expression ‘such ’ used in the  notification twice, only indicates that the Colonisation Tehsildars,  who have  been  given  all the powers  of  the  Collector  under Section  22 of the Act, may exercise ‘such’ of these  powers as  are  necessary to be exercised in a  given  case  before them.  In any case while dealing with a notification of  the type before us, it is permissible to iron-out the creases to clarify  the manifest intention of the State  Government  in issuing  the  notification.  We, therefore,  hold  that  the notification dated May 30, 1978 appointing the  Colonisation Tehsildars  in  the  State  of  Rajasthan  to  perform   the functions  and  to exercise the powers  of  Collector  under Section  22 of the Act is legal and valid.  The  High  Court was not justified in reaching a different conclusion.      We  allow  the appeals, set aside the judgment  of  the learned  Single Judge and also of the Division Bench of  the High  Court  and  dismiss the writ petitions  filed  by  the respondents-petitioners before the High Court.  There  shall be no orders as to costs. V.P.R.                                       Appeal allowed.                                                   755

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