Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusKISHAN SINGH ETC. ETC.
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 194
- Decided
- 6 August 1992
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- KULDIP SINGH
Holding
The notification validly delegates all powers of the Collector under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 to the Colonisation Tehsildars, and its wording, though imperfect, reflects the State's manifest intention.
Summary
The State of Rajasthan issued a notification on 30 May 1978 under Section 2(i)(a) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, appointing all Colonisation Tehsildars to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under Section 22 of the same Act. The Tehsildars used this authority to initiate eviction proceedings against alleged trespassers, which were challenged before the Rajasthan High Court on the ground that the notification was vague and did not confer the full powers of the Collector. The High Court held the notification invalid and allowed the writ petitions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the language of the notification, held that despite its imperfect drafting it fully conveyed the State's manifest intention to delegate all powers under Section 22 to the Tehsildars, and that the word "such" merely qualified the powers to be exercised as needed. Consequently, the Court affirmed the validity of the delegation, set aside the High Court’s judgment and the writ orders, and allowed the State’s appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the notification dated 30 May 1978, issued under Section 2(i)(a) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, validly confers the powers and functions of the Collector under Section 22 on the Colonisation Tehsildars.
- Whether the expression "such functions" and "such powers" in the notification limits the delegation to only certain powers or includes all powers under Section 22.
- Whether the High Court erred in holding the notification vague, ambiguous and ultra vires.
Legislation cited
- Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954s. 22, s. 2(i)(a)
Subjects
delegation of statutory powersinterpretation of statutesnotificationcolonisation tehsildarsummary eviction proceedingsSection 22Rajasthan Colonisation Actadministrative lawquasi‑judicial authority
Judgment
A STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
KISHAN SINGH ETC. ETC.
AUGUST 6, 1992
B [KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASW_AMY, JJ.]
Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954-Section 2(i)(a)-Notification dated
30.5.1978 issued unde,._Judicial notice of casual manner of draftin~ ~
Manifest intention of Govemment-Construction.
c Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954-Sections 22, 2(i)(a)-Notification
dated 30.5.1978 appointing Colonisation Tehsi/dars to perfonn and exercise
the powers of Collectof'-Validity of.
-
Interpretation of Statutes-Notification issued under a statute-Man.ifest ~
D intention of Government-Construction-Method of iron-out the creases-Per-
missible.
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
E powers of the Collector under Section 22 of the Act.
·--t
The Colonisation Tehsildars initiated proceedings against various
F
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 af
-
eviction before the High Court filing 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
G 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.
H The appeals preferred by the State were dismissed by a Division
748
' STATE v. KISHAN SINGH 749
Bench of the High Court. A
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 30.5.1978 issued
under section 2(i)(a) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 validly B
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 i~ which the government-documents
c
-
!
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 D
of the Act have been delegated and conferred on the Colonisation Tehsil-
dars in the State of Rajasthan. The expression 'such' used in the notifica-
tion 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] E
~
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 proceed-
ings under various sub-sections have to be initiated and a.ction taken by the
F
same authority. [753H-754AJ
..-..-
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 G
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]
2.0J. The notification dated May 30, 1978 appointing the Colonisa-
tion Tehsildars in the State of Rajasthan to perform the functions and to
~
)
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTl) (1992) 3 S.C.R.
A 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 issu·
ing the notification. [754E]
B
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,
c 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. ~
D 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
E 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 the said notifica-
F
tion, 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-
G
(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·
H person who occupied or continues to occupy any land in a
\_
r'(
STATE v. KISHAN SINGH (KULDIP SINGH, J.) 751
~
colony to which he has no right or title or without lawful A
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
B
reasonable time as the Collector may from time to time fJX 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 forfei- c
- ture 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 D
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 of the
Collector, be liable to oommitment to civil prison for a term
which, may extend to three months and to pay penalty to the E
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 oecupying or continuing to occupy land without lawful F
,....... 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
G
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- H
}
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R. ·r
A (a) does not show any cause; or -\::...
I
(b) makes any representation which is rejected after such
enquiry and hearing as may be necessary in the circumstances
of the case;
B 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 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."
c 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 (Rajas-
D than 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 Un.der
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."
E 1-
The Colonisation Tehsildars initiated proceedings against various
.
persons under section 22 of the Act and also passed orders of eviction from
F
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 22f)/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 jurisdic-
G tion 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
H are against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
l
STATE v. KISHAN SINGH [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 753
·J The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the following A
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
B
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 Collec-
tors 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 some-
thing that has been stated earlier or which is to be specified or
exemplified in the portion which is to follow. The word 'such'
c
means of the kind the like kind or the same kind. The word
'such' is used to avoid repetition of the expression already
D
indicated described or specified or to denote the context which
-·
..IJ
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 exer-
cise SUCH POWERS of the Collector under Section 22 of this
r Act "to mean" "to perform ALL FUNCTIONS 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 F
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 fded by the State Government.
G
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. Sec-
tion 22 of the Act provides summary proceedings for the ejectment of H
J
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.
A 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. The proceedings under section 22 of the Act being quasi judicial
the authority entrusted with the powers of the Collector has to be invested
B 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
c 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.
--\
D 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 indi- ';.-
cates 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
E 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 Govern-
ment in issuing the notification. We, therefore, hold that the notification
dated May 30, 1978 appointing the Colonisation Tehsildars in the State of
F 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
G writ petitions filed by the respondents-petitioners before the High Court.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
V.P.R. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "delegation of statutory powers"Sign in to search