JAGMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition, purporting to be "under sec. 9 read with sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act", against an order dated 31-10-66 by the Assistant Collector, Ganganagar. The facts are that the village Panchayat Gadhi Chawani sold certain residential plots to the applicants (356 plots in all) during the period 1961 to 1965 on payment of one or two paise per square yard. It was brought to the notice of the Collector that these sales were in disregard of the provisions of rules 256 to 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. The Additional Collector therefore, proceeded to revise the orders of the Panchayat. A plea was made before the Additional Collector during the hearing of the matter, on behalf of the applicants, that the Collector could not hear a revision against the pattas granted by the Panchayat. The objection was, however, rejected by the Additional Collector saying that as an officer authorised under sec. 27 A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act he could call for the record pertaining to any order passed by the Panchayat and revise the order. The Additional Collector, after examining the matter, decided by order dated 19-5 66 that the orders of the Panchayat may be modified to the extent that 40 paise per square yard may be charged for the plots. However, by another order dated 31 10 66; he reviewed his order dated 19 5 66 cancelled it, and passed a fresh order to the effect that in the case of 41 plots on which construction had already taken place, the sale may be regularised after recovering 25 paise, per square yard more (25 isls vksj dher olwy dj iv~vs cgky j[ksa tkosa) and in the case of the remaining 315 plots, on which no particular construction (dksbz [kkl fuekz. k) WAS found, the sale may be cancelled. It is against this second order] that the revision petition has been presented. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that in respect of the land in ques-tion, the Panchayat alone had the power to sell the land. The Collector had no jurisdiction 1965 RLW 494 (Budh Singh vs. Jeshram Singh) was cited in support of this contention. It was stated that even the order dated 19-5-66 was without jurisdiction. It was further stated that the orders of the Panchayat were appealable under R. 270 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules but no appeal had been preferred by any one. Despite that the Additional Collector passed his order dated 19-5-66. Even though the order was without jurisdiction, and was an unjustified interference with the Panchayat's orders, which had already been executed, the persons concerned accepted the order in order to settle the matter. However, the Additional Collector's subsequent order dated 31-10-66 came as a complete shock. Even though, the order states that the Sarpanch of the Panchayat and residents of the village to whom plots had been allotted were present and that the order was pronounced in their presence, no proceedings or notices to parties concerned preceded the decision. It is not clear which particular persons were present. Certainly all concerned could not have been present in the absence of notice. The order was, therefore, not only without jurisdiction but involved a very material irregularily in as much as it was passed without giving those affected an opportunity of being heard, even though an order prejudicial to them was being passed. Learned Deputy Government Advocate argued that the Panchayat had acted in utter disregard of the rules regarding sale of plots, and the Collector could exercise revisional powers under Rule 272 which he did by his order dated 10-5-66. The second order dated 21-1-0-66, he said, was also in exercise of revisional powers. Review was an inherent power in pursuance of the same. Learned counsel for the applicants in rejoinder said that the power of review was a specific statutory power and was not included in revisional powers. There is nothing like an inherent power of review. No such power can be exercised in the absence of specific provision of law. The rulings in 1957 RRD 74 (Rajaram Singh vs. Purohit Udainarain) and 1969 RRD 442 (Phool Chand Chaubay vs. Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur) were cited in support of the contention. It is quite clear that the order dated 31-10 68 was an order of 'review'. The Additional Collector himself referred to it in the body of the order as a review (NAZARSANI ). I agree with learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, that in reviewing his order the Additional Collector exercised a power for which there was no provision of law. Although, even without going into details, the Additional Collector's order appears to be bad for the reason mentioned above, I am faced with the question whether a revision is maintainable against the order. The Additional Collector was exercising powers under Rule 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nayaya Panchayat (General) Rules. He may have erred in the exercise of the power, but there can be no doubt that his action was in his capacity as an authority under Rule 272 of the said rules, read with sec. 27 A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, the Collector having been delegated with powers under the section by notification. The Additional Collector, was thus acting in the capacity of an authority specially delegated with the powers of the State Government under the special statute. When the Collector, or the Additional Collector acted in that capacity, he was not acting as a Revenue Officer or a Revenue Court, but as a persona designate under a special law. It would be difficult to hold that his action in that capacity could be subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under sec. 83, or even under sec. 9, of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. I consider, therefore, that however irregularly the Additional Collector may have acted, his decision is not subject to revision by the Board. If at all, the State Government alone could perhaps call for the record and take suitable action Under sec. 27-A (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. I, therefore, reject this revision application as being not maintainable under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. .