SUKHDEV PRASAD Vs. SADASHIV RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will govern the disposal of Revision Nos. 753/60, 754/60 and 755/60 as they involve the consideration of a common point of law.

(2.) THE facts are briefly, as follows: - The Collector, Dewas, by his order dated 3 -7 -59 transferred 22 Patwaris to various Circles, some within the same Division and others outside their sub -divisions. Six of the Patwaris, viz., (1) Pannalal, (2) Baboolal, (3) Sadashiv Rao, (4) Daulataingh, (5) Moolchand and (6) Hazarilal, went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, on the grounds, firstly, that the Collector's order violated the provisions of rule 6 of the Land Records Manual (Patwari Manual) and, secondly, that no satisfactory reasons were given for the transfer, outside their Sub -divisions, of 5 of the appellants. As no stay order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, while the appeals were pending before him, the order of the Collector was carried out by the Patwaris in due course and, in result, the present applicants, viz., (1) Ramchand, (2) Sukhdeo, (3) Hazarilal son of Mangalji changed places respectively with (1) Hazarilal son of Kanhaiyalal, (2) Sadashiv Rao and (3) Baboolal. This interchange took place before the learned Additional Commissioner passed his order of 25 -3 -60 by which he set aside Collector's order. The Additional Commissioner's order was, however, stayed by this Court on 16 -8 -60. The order of the Additional Commissioner has now been challenged by the applicants on the grounds, firstly, that the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Collector and, secondly, that the impugned order is not justified on merits.

(3.) IT was pointed out that in the above provision the power of the Collector to transfer a Patwari from one sub -division to another is restricted only to a case where a Patwari fails to report the acquisition, otherwise than by inheritance, of any right in land within his circle. Since in the instant cases the Collector did not transfer the Patwaris on account of their acquisition of any rights in land in their circles, the order of the Collector cannot be said to have been passed under rule 6 of the Land Records Manual as was incorrectly assumed by the learned Additional Commissioner. As such Collector's order was not appealable and the Additional Commissioner in disturbing it acted without jurisdiction. In my opinion, this contention has considerable force. The side -head of rule 6 reads "Holding of land by Patwaris" and the Rule, read as a whole along with its sub -paras, (a) to (e), would show that it deals exclusively with the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of rights in land by a Patwari, either in his circle or outside his circle, without reporting or without previous sanction, as the case may be. The infringement of this rule has been made punishable even with dismissal. It is in this connection that the Sub -Divisional Officer, to whom a Patwari may report acquisition of rights in land, is to consider the desirability of transfering such a Patwari to another circle. If transfer to any other circle in the sub -division is not possible, the Sub -Divisional Officer has to approach the Collector for the Patwari's transfer to some other subdivision. Rule 6 does not in terms, deal with the general power of superintendence and control exercisable by the Collector over the Patwaris. The main theme of rule 6 is to prohibit acquisition of right in land by a Patwari in his circle and the Rules lay down the various steps that should be taken, either by the Sub -Divisional Officer or by the Collector, if an acquisition is brought to their notice. One of the steps is to transfer the Patwari from his circle. Obviously, therefore, rule 6 does not confer power upon a Collector to transfer a Patwari on grounds other than those mentioned in the Rule itself. If, therefore, a Collector transfers a Patwari outside a circle or a sub -division, on grounds other than the acquisition of land, his action would be purely executive or administrative in nature. It will be outside the ambit of the Land Records Manual and consequently outside the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. In this view the Collector's order would not be appealable under section 35 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. I, therefore, hold that the learned Additional Commissioner in setting aside Collector's order in the instant cases acted without jurisdiction.