DAYAWANTI Vs. LACHMAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for an appropriate writ in order to quash an order of the Financial Commissioner setting aside the orders of the Tehsildar and the Collector passed under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956.

(2.) IT appears that the non -applicants had filed, an application for a writ in this Court against the orders of the Tehsildar, but this Court refused to interfere and the order of the Tehsildar was thus upheld. The non -applicants then moved the Commissioner in revision who recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the orders of the Tehsildar and the Collector should be set aside. The Financial Commissioner accepting the reference quashed the orders of the Tehsildar and the Collector and remanded the case to the Tehsildar for fresh orders in accordance with law. The only ground on which the Financial Commissioner quashed the orders of the Tehsildar and the Collector was that in his view the Tehsildar was not empowered under the provisions of Section 4 of the Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956 to get an enquiry made by the Naib Tehsildar who was not a revenue officer. In this connection, the learned Financial Commissioner has observed as follows in his judgment:

(3.) IT is manifest that this Sub -section does not lay down any limitation on the part of a Revenue Officer to hold an enquiry in a particular manner or by a particular person. In fact, the words deemed necessary clearly imply that an officer has been given a wide discretion in holding the enquiry. Thus if the Tehsildar instead of holding the enquiry himself gets the enquiry held by some other person and then passes the order on the basis of such an enquiry, he acts within the ambit of the provisions of sub -section (I) of Section 4 of the Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956. There is nothing in this sub -section to show that the Tehsildar cannot get an enquiry made by somebody else or to show that if he orders the enquiry to be made by an officer, it must be a revenue officer. These limitations appear to have been imported into the section by the Financial Commissioner by invoking Section 19 -A of the Land Revenue Act, which, however, does not apply to the present case, when the Tehsildar is acting under sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the Act which has got separate and distinct provisions altogether. There is absolutely no room for invoking S.19 -A at all.