SHEORAM Vs. HULASRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case arose apparently from a number of applications from the cultivators of village Kosala regarding their rights of irrigation from certain tanks, the Sub-Divisional Officer initiated proceedings under section 242 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and ordered a record to be made of the rights of irrigation of certain persons including the applicant from a tank named Konhari tank recorded in the village papers as khasra No. 432. It appears that in the same proceedings the Sub-Divisional Officer had also made enquiries and passed orders on various matters connected with the preparation of the Nistar Patrak under section 234 of the Code. The non-applicant, who is the holder of the tank khasra No. 432, was aggrieved by the Sub-Divisional Officer's order giving irrigation rights from that tank to the applicant and certain other persons, and so he went and preferred an appeal before the Collector under section 44 of the Code. The Collector on finding that the Sub-Divisinal Officer's order was vitiated by certain serious procedural defects set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the case to him for passing proper orders according to law after holding fresh enquiries separately under sections 234 and 242 of the Code. Against this order of the Collector the applicant preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner which was rejected. Hence this revision application.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the non-applicant raised a preliminary objection that all the parties interested in this revision have not been noticed as required by the provision in section 50 of the Code, and therefore no order can be passed in the case as it stands now. THE learned counsel on the other side replied that the parties interested in the revision are those who were parties to the proceedings before the Commissioner, and they are already on record as parties to the revision and have been duly noticed too. I think the objection of the learned counsel for the non-applicant has no force and has to be rejected. Taking the broadest view of the matter, the parties interested in this revision are those who can reasonably be expected to feel aggrieved by the rejection of the revision or by its being allowed. If the revision is rejected and the Commissioner's order is affirmed, the only party who will have any reason for grievance is the applicant who is the only party to challenge the Commissioner's order. THE applicant has not only been noticed, but is present before me ready for a bitter show-down with his antagonist. If the revision is allowed and the Sub-Divisional Officer's order is affirmed, the only person who will have any reason to feel aggrieved is the person who had preferred an appeal against the Sub-Divisional Officer's order. That person is the non-applicant who also has not only been noticed, but is present before me although apparently not very keen on a show-down. THE preliminary objection is therefore rejected.

(3.) ON merits also the Commissioner's order cannot be maintained. The objection regarding the Collector's jurisdiction to hear the first appeal was raised before the Commissioner also. The Commissioner's decision on the point is as follows:-