KARAN SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Karan Singh and Charan Singh, who are tenants of land Khasra Nos. 63, 64, 93, 98, 99, 139, 142, 147, 150, 151, 163, 182, 483, 449, 500 and 501 measuring 22 Bighas and 14 biswas in Village Tehra Lodha sublet the said land to Ramsukha for a period of three years commencing from the 6th of February 1951. On account of the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance 1949, the petitioners Karansing and others could not eject the sub-tenants on the expiry of the term of the lease and Ramsukha, therefore, continued in possession as a sub-tenant up to the time the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 came into force on the 15th of October 1955. The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance was repealed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and a period of one year was prescribed initially by sec. 182-A for filing applications for ejectment under clauses (a) and (b) of sec. 180 of the said Act. A similar period of one year was also prescribed under item 68 of Schedule 3 of the Tenancy Act. Karansingh and Charansingh made an application within the said prescribed period for Ramsukha's ejectment to the Sub-divisional Officer, Bharatpur on the 13th of February 1956. A notice was issued by the Sub-divisional Officer to the sub-tenant Ramsukha and he filed a reply on the 21st of March 1956 and 4th of April 1956 was fixed for hearing of the petition of ejectment. On that day Ramsukha made a default and failed to appear. The Sub-divisional Officer recorded evidence ex parte and made an order of ejectment on the 13th of June 1956. Ramsukha filed an appeal from the said order of ejectment to the court of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, but that appeal was barred by limitation prescribed for filing appeals under sec. 228 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, held that the appeal was time-barred and dismissed it on that ground on the 14th of June 1957. Ramsukha then filed a second appeal to the Rajasthan Board of Revenue and the learned members of the Board held that the decision of the Additional Commissioner that the first appeal was time-barred was correct; but they set aside the order of ejectment for the reason that the application for ejectment had not been made between the 1st of July and the 30th of September, as provided by sec. 181 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned members of the Board observed that the provision of sec. 181 was mandatory and as it was disregarded in this case, they were bound to set aside the order of ejectment. Karansingh and Charansingh have come to this Court against the order of the Board of Revenue dated the 24th of December 1957. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Board of Revenue acted without jurisdiction in this case inasmuch as the first appeal having become time-barred, the second appeal on merits could not be entertained and the Board had no power under sec. 230 in revision as well to interfere with a decree or order of a subordinate court in which an appeal lay to the Board, as in this case. As regards the powers of superintendence under sec. 9 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, it is urged that those powers have to be exercised sparingly subject to the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. In the instant case, it is contended that the Board had jurisdiction to act on a second appeal which lay to it and it had, therefore, no power to interfere otherwise than by way of an appeal. Mr. Ratanlal also urged that the provision of section 181 was for the administrative convenience of the revenue courts and it was not mandatory. The learned counsel argued that the Tenancy Act prescribed the time of ejectment from April to the end of June and with a view to enable the Revenue Courts to do so, the provision of sec. 181 has been enacted. In other words, the learned counsel urged that application made between July to September is likely to be decided some time between September and April so that the order of ejectment may be enforced during the months of April to June. The revenue courts, he contended, did not lose their jurisdiction by contravention of the provision of sec. 181 in a particular case.

(2.) MR. Vishinlal for Ramsukha has urged that the provision of sec. 181 is mandatory and the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to make an order in exercise of its powers of superintendence to ensure that the provision of sec. 181 was duly complied with.