PRAHLAD Vs. BALRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case on 25-5-1960 the Revenue INspector did certification of the entries in the mutation register ordering that the names of the applicants and of the non-applicants shall be entered as joint-holders of holding No. 65 with the shares as given below- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_730_MPLJ_1965Image1.jpg</IMG> Non-applicants went up in appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer who set aside the order of the Revenue INspector. The applicants, Prahlad and others, filed an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and rejected the appeal. The applicants Prahlad and others, have now come up in revision to the Board of Revenue against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner.

(2.) THE first point to be decided in this case is whether there was any dispute about making the entries before the Revenue Inspector on 25-5- 1960. THEre is said to be a dispute between two parties when there is a difference of opinion between them. In the certified copy of the order dated 25-5-1960 of the Revenue Inspector about minor-Balram, and his mother, Rajan, it is written <IMG>JUDGEMENT_730_MPLJ_1965Image2.jpg</IMG> THE counsel for the applicants Prahlad and others, argued that the words <IMG>JUDGEMENT_730_MPLJ_1965Image3.jpg</IMG> does not mean that there was any dispute between the parties and that the words <IMG>JUDGEMENT_730_MPLJ_1965Image4.jpg</IMG> have no significance whatsoever as the Revenue Inspector cannot make any partition of any property. In the order of the Revenue Inspector it is written that "Prahlad, Brindawan etc" are in possession of survey Nos. 23, 24,26,27/2,29,35/1 and 305 and that the possession over the above mentioned survey numbers has been accepted by Balram and Rajan and by the villagers who were present before the Revenue Inspector. Thus "Prahlad, Brindawan etc." are shown to be in possession of 20.44 acres and this naturally means that Balram and Rajan were in possession of the remaining 36.28 acres. If the statements made in the Revenue Inspector's order are correct it would mean that Balram and Rajan wanted that they should have a separate holding having an area of 36.28 acres in their possession and that "Prahlad, Brindawan etc" should have another separate holding having 20.44 acres in their possession. THE Revenue Inspector in his order has not definitely stated what "Prahlad, Brindawan etc." wanted but from his order it appears that they wanted that they and Balram and Rajan should be entered in joint possession over the whole area of 56.72 acres with the entry that Balram and Rajan have a share of five annas and four pies, that Prahlad has a share of five annas and four pies, and that Brindawan, Babulal and Himmat have a share of five annas and four pies. THEre is a world of difference between what Balram and Rajan wanted and what was wanted by Prahlad, Brindawan etc. Although Balram and Rajan were in possession of 36.38 acres out of the 56-72 acres they have been given only five annas four pies share in the entry. Though the counsel for the applicants in his arguments stated that the Revenue Inspector cannot make a partition as desired by Balram and Rajan the Revenue Inspector has actually made a partition giving the share of each party. Further Balram and Rajan did not want the Revenue Inspector to make a partition. If what the Revenue Inspector has written in his order is correct then Balram and Rajan only wanted a separate holding. Again it makes quite a lot of difference whether two parties are jointly entered in one holding or whether they are given two different holdings, as for the various legal proceedings under the Code concerning Bhumiswamis, it makes a great deal of difference whether one is joint with others in a holding or has holding separate from the others. If Balram and Rajan had a separate holding they could act independently of Prahlad and others but if Balram and Rajan had a joint holding with Prahlad and others then Balram and Rajan cannot take any legal action independently. So there is a world of difference between the stand alleged to have been taken by Balram and Rajan before the Revenue Inspector and the stand taken by "Prahlad, Brindawan etc." before the Revenue Inspector. THEre was certainly a dispute between the two parties and the counsel for the applicants is quite wrong in trying to belittle the significance of the words <IMG>JUDGEMENT_730_MPLJ_1965Image5.jpg</IMG> as being of not importance whatsoever.

(3.) SIMPLY because no appeal or revision lies against the order of the Revenue Inspector it does not mean that the Revenue Inspector's order will stand unless one of the parties gets a decision from a competent eivil Court under section 111 of the Code. The order passed by any person who is not a Revenue Officer is not appealable or subject to revision under the Code but it does not mean that every such order will stand unless set aside by a civil Court. If the order passed by a person who is not a Revenue Officer is passed in due exercise of his jurisdiction then such an order would stand unless set aside according to law. In the present case I have already shown that the order passed by the Revenue Inspector is a nullity as it was passed by the Revenue Inspector without jurisdiction. So this simply means that for all purposes the order of the Revenue Inspector does not exist at all and no one need take any notice of it as it will not affect anything whatsoever.