ANANT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision filed under sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner dated 8-2-1968 in appeal upholding the order of the sub-Divisional Officer dated 8-11-1966 by which the sale of the house of the defaulter Anant Ram, the petitioner, was confirmed. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an amount of Rs. 7324. 30 consisting of Rs. 493. 10 as Land Revenue, Rs. 31. 20 as Irrigation Charges and Rs. 6800/- as taccavi loan was outstanding against Shri Anant Ram, the present applicant, as per report of the Patwari dated 26-5-1966. Proceedings for the attachment and sale of a house belonging to the defaulter were initiated by the Tehsildar, Bali. The sale, by auction, was conducted on 30 9-1966 and the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 5-10-1966 confirmed the sale for Rs. 8051/- in the name of Hira s/o Hema and directed the remaining |th amount of the sale price to be deposited within a period of 15 days from the date of order It appears that the auction purchaser deposited 1/4th price on 3-10-1966 and the remaining |th on 5-10 1966. On 13-10-1966 on behalf of the purchaser and the defaulter objection application was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was rejected on 8-11-1966 after hearing the counsel of the applicants. It is against this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer that an appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner which was rejected on 9-2-1968, hence this revision application. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Dy. Govt, Advocate that against an order of Revenue Appellate Authority there was no provision for filing a revision, rather an appeal should have been preferred, but here a revision under sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act has been filed instead of an appeal under sec. 76 (d) of the Act. It was also argued that in the appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, only one point, namely that on knocking down of the sale, 1/4th price was not paid on the spot, was pressed as will be seen from the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, but now a number of points have been taken, which could not be considered, because the other grounds had already been abandoned by the applicant. In support of these arguments Abdul Hakim vs. Sarkar, 1953 R. L. W. Revenue Supplement page 17, and Sonabati vs. Kilyanand A. I. R. 1955 Patna Vol. 2 page 306 and 340 were cited. Section 76 (d) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provided that an appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority or a Settlement Commissioner to the Board. Sec. 84 of the Act provided that the Board may call for the record of any case of a judicial nature or connected with settlement in which no appeal lies to the Board if the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or him by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its or his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit. In reply, to the preliminary objection, the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant drew my attention to sec. 257 B (1) & (5) the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which provides as under : B (1) "if proceedings are taken under this chapter against any person for the recovery of any sum of money referred to in sec. 256 or sec. 257, such person may at any time, before any property attached in such proceedings is knocked down at a sale thereof, pay the amount claimed and at the same time deliver a protest signed by himself or by his authorised agent to the revenue officer taking such proceedings. x x x x x xx x x x (5) No appeal or reference shall be from an order of a revenue officer passed in proceedings taken under this chapter for the recovery of sums of money referred to in sec. 256 & 257. " From the above it is evident that the defaulter could not prefer either an appeal or a review application, and hence the only way which was open to him was to file a revision application. Chapter X of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, contains the procedure for collection of revenue and any sum as arrears of land revenue. The Revenue authorities are required to comply with its provisions when conducting a sale. Since the proceedings were taken by the Revenue officers under the provision of this chapter and since no appeal or reference could be made from an order of revenue officer passed in proceedings taken under this chapter, the applicant defaulter was justified in filing this revision application. I do not agree with the plea advanced by the Government Advocate that the conditions for filing a revision provided in section 84 of the Act have not been fulfilled. An appeal could lie from an order passed in appeal by a Collector in matters not connected with settlement or land records to the Revenue Appellate Authority as provided in sec. 76 (a) of the Act, but in the present case, there was no such order passed by the Collector as such the appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer in proceedings under Chapter X was not maintainable and he appeared to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him. As regards the second point that before the Revenue Appellate Authority the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, based his arguments on one ground only, put now other grounds have also been urged in the revision application, the same could not be entertained particularly when no affidavit was filed to show that the other grounds were abandoned by the applicant. The Revenue Appellate Authority in his order has said that

(2.) ESAUS cgl cdqyk; lquh o lacaf/kr i=koyh Hkh ns[kha yk;d odhy vihyk. V us flqz 1@4 jde uhykeh dh cksyh lekir gksus ds fnu ugha tek djkus ds ckczr nyhy dh vksj ckdh vihy i= esa dgs okdsvkr ij dksbz nyhy ugha dha** From the above it cannot be inferred that the counsel for the appellant had abandoned his other pleas set out in the appeal. He seems to have laid stress on one of those pleas only. Therefore, the contention that the applicant should not be allowed to raise those pleas now, is not tenable. The case law A. I. R. Patna 1935 pages 306 and 340 cited, does not apply to the case in hand because in that case a particular issue was struck off because it was not pressed. In the present case, what happened was that the counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to one out of many points mentioned in the body of appeal. This by itself, did not mean that the] other points were abandoned and the same could not be raised before this court. My attention has been drawn to sec. 239 (i) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act under which it is provided that every sale under chapter X shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. In the case before us, the auction was conducted on 28th, 29th, and 30th September, 1966 by Shri Hindu Singh Patwari under orders of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 24th September, 1966. Appointment of the Patwari for conducting the sale, was on the face of it against the provisions of sec. 239 (1) referred to above. Although there is nothing on record to show it, but even if it is presumed that the Collector had specially appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector) to conduct the sale, the Sub-Divisional Officer on his part was not authorised to appoint the Patwari to conduct the sale, when the law provided that either the Collector himself should conduct the sale or may specially appoint the Assistant Collector for the purpose. Under sec. 242 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act the person declared to be the purchaser is required to deposit immediately 25% of the amount of his bid, in default of which the property was required to be put up for sale forthwith. It was urged that compliance of this provision was not made. The sale was completed on 30-9 1966 and Patwari the sale officer put up a report on the same day to the Sub-Divisional Officer seeking his orders for collecting l/4th amount of the bid from the bidder and depositing the same. The Sub Divisional Officer passed an order on 3-10-1966 that the amount be deposited and in compliance the Tehsildar Bali directed, on the same day the cashier of the Tehsil to deposit the amount of Rs. 2013/- and after due deposit of the amount the Tehsildar directed the purchaser vide his letter dated 6-10-1966 to deposit the remaining |th amount within 15 days. In this regard compliance of sec. 242 and 243 of the Act does not seem to have been made. Under sec. 242 the 1/4th amount of the sale price was to be deposited on 30-9-1966 then and there on the completion of the sale. This was not done. Further under sec. 243 full amount of purchase money was to be paid by the purchaser at the Collectors office on or before the fifteenth day from the date of the sale. The remaining amount was deposited in Tehsil on 13-10-1966. In the light of the observations made above, the sale was not properly made. It was made by an officer not competent to do it. In view of this, the revision application deserves to be accepted. The revision application, is, therefore, allowed and order of both the lower courts are set aside. Pronounced in open court. .