STATE Vs. KR KESHVA SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Civil Judge, Beawar under Section 243 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the only point which calls for determination in this reference is whether the expression "a civil court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject-matter in dispute" should be interpreted to include a revenue court also.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this reference may be briefly slated as follows: In criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. State v. Keshav Sen and Raghunath, the S. D. M, Beawar being unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the property in dispute, which is admittedly an agricultural holding, referred the matter to the Sub Judge First Class, Beawar under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. which ultimately came on the file of the Civil Judge, Beawar. On the extension of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to the Ajmer area in the year 1958, the Civil Judge held that the findings referred to by the criminal court can be determined only by a revenue court, and passed an order on 21-7-1958 transferring the case to the court of the Assistant Collector and S. D. O. , Beawai under Section 206 (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The S. D. O. , Beawar did not agree with the opinion expressed by the Civil Judge. He observed that the words "civil Court" under Section 146 Cr. P. C. cannot under any circumstance include a revenue court, and the civil court's jurisdiction under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. cannot be ousted under Clause (2) of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. lie also pointed out that a reference by a criminal court cannot be considered a suit or application as mentioned in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that it is not a case of instituting a suit or application but is a mere reference. He accordingly, drew up the order of reference and forwarded the case to the Collector, Ajmer for sanctioning the making of the reference and submitting the case to the High Court. The Collector, Ajmer agreed with the conclusion of the S. D. O. Beawar and further derived support from the definition of the words "revenue court" as given in the Raiasthan Tenancy Act. However, instead of making a reference, he resolved the conflict of jurisdiction himself and holding that the case was triable by a civil court, forwarded the case to the District Judge for transferring it to the Civil Judge. The Civil Judge, consequently, has made the present reference.

(3.) NONE of the parties appeared before me. The Deputy Government Advocate supported the reference made by the Civil Judge. The Civil Judge has very rightly pointed out that the Collector, Ajmer did not act in accordance with law in omitting to forward the reference of the S. D. O. , Beawar to this court and instead sending the case direct to the District Judge. However, it will be unnecessary to emphasise this aspect of the case as the reference is now before me and it will be quite proper and fair that this court should determine the question raised in the reference.