RATAN Vs. HAZARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the appellate order of the Collector, Ganganagar dated 18th April, 1961, upholding the decision of the Gram Panchayat dated 22.11.1960. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. In this case a very important question of law arises for determination namely whether the Gram Panchayats have been duly or validly empowered to take cognisance and dispose of applications under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by means of a Government Notification No. F. 6 (41) Rev. (B)/6o.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this question may be stated as follows. The non -petitioners Lalchand, Thakur and Bhagirath filed an application before the Tehsildar Ganga Nagar under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act claiming a right of way to their own lands through the lands of the petitioners Nathu and Jesram. The learned Tehsildar after keeping the application on his file for sometime transferred it for disposal to the Gram Panchayat of Mahiyanwali. The Gram Panchayat decided the case in favour of the applicants i.e. the non -petitioners before us, allowing them the right of way applied for. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners went up in appeal before the Collector Ganganagar. In their appeal they raised two contentions. The first point urged was that the Gram Panchayat had held the proceedings behind the back of the petitioners. The second ground taken was that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to try an application under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned Collector rejected both the contentions. Upon the first point he held that the proceedings were held ex -parte, on account of willful default of the petitioners. As regards the question of jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat over the dispute the learned Collector placed reliance on a Notification No. F. 6 (41) Rev. (8)/6o dated 17th June, 1960 and held that the Gram Panchayat had the necessary jurisdiction to try the case.

(3.) In this revision before us it is urged that the learned Collector failed to properly appreciate this Notification and entirely mis -directed himself as to the law which governed the dispute. In order to dispose of this argument it is necessary to re -produce the Notification itself. The Notification reads as follows : - - "No. F. 6(41) Rev.(B)/6o : - -In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, (Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956) the State Government does hereby direct that : - -