NANURAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by 17 petitioners Shri Nanuram etc. all residents of Lachipura against an appellate order of the Commissioner, Udaipur dated 29. 6. 59 whereby he rejected the appeal against an order of the Collector, Chittorgarh, dated 3. 9. 1959. We have heard the counsel for the parties and examined the record carefully.

(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. In village Barada there is a plot No. (9) measuring 204 Bighas THE village was settled in Samvat year 2008 and the entire area of this plot was entered in the settlement record as Charnot Mehfooz. At that time the village was in the Jagir. It appears the Jagirdar raised no objection thereto. Subsequently, it appears, the Jagirdar issued pattas in respect of a portion of this field measuring 74 Bighas. THEse Pattas were in the names of the minor sons of the Jagirdar and a few other persons. On the strength of the Pattas a mutation in revenue records was claimed. THE Teh-sildar in the first instance refused mutation on the ground that the land in dispute was Charnot Mehfooz and therefore no cultivatory rights could be granted therein. On appeal, the Collector remanded the case to the Tehsildar for fresh decision whereupon the Tehsildar allowed mutation. From this order the present petitioners went in appeal before the learned Collector and it appears that the learned Collector by his order dated 3. 9. 1959 set aside the order of the Tehsildar holding that the land in dispute was Charnot Mehfooz and could not be released or allotted for cultivation. For the time being the matter appears to have rested at that stage. But sometime after the Gram Panchayat at the instance of the Patta holders from the Jagirdar applied to the Collector that the area measuring 74 Bighas having been brought in cultivation fresh area bringing the total upto 204 Bighas may be reserved for village Charnot. THE learned Collector thereupon by his order dated 5. 12. 1959, allowed the 74 Bighas from Khasra No. 9 to be excluded from Charnot Mehfooz and in lieu thereof permitted the area of some other plots measuring 82 Bighas 92 Biswas to be included in the village Charnot. In ordering this arrangement, the learned Collector as he says in his judgment, has been influenced by a common recommendation of the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Gram Panchayat. THEre is no doubt that there was a common recommendation of Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Gram Panchayat. But there were also the Collector's own orders dated 3. 9. 1959,wherein he had clearly stated that the area in dispute haying been recorded as Mehfooz Charnot at the time of a settlement could not be released for cultivation. However, there was art appeal from this order before the learned Commissioner, and the learned Commissioner taking the view of the matter that the Collector was competent to sanction this arrangement dismissed the appeal.