MOTILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner, II, Jaipur, dated 9-12-60 by which he has rejected appeal preferred by the applicant to him against the order of the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur dated 29. 9. 58, as being time barred. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record also. A brief reference to the proceedings before the Addl. Collector would make the matter quite clear in this case. The proceedings before the learned Addl. Collector were regarding the auctioning of the Malba of a house declared by Tehsildar under sec. 91 of the Raj. Land Revenue Act to have been built on State land without lawful authority. The Malba was directed to be forfeited. 27. 9. 58 had been fixed for hearing the case in the presence of the counsel for the applicant. It so transpired that 27. 9. 59 and 28. 9. 58 both turned out to be holidays. The learned Additional Collector took up the case on 29. 9. 59 when the office opened after the above two holidays and holding that in accordance with rules the applicant should have been present in the court that day and that as he had not put in appearance notwithstanding notice,ex-parte proceedings be taken against him and the sanction for the auction of the"malba"of the house forfeited to the State as recommended by the Tehsildar be accorded. Against this order the applicant went up in appeal to the learned Addl. Commissioner, who dismissed it as being time-barred because of its having been presented on 13. 7. 59. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants here is that it was not necessary for the applicant to appear on 29. 9. 58 when on the date 27. 9. 58 fixed for hearing of the case it had turned out to be a holiday, and the learned Addl. Collector should have again informed the applicant and taken up the case on the next date so fixed by him. Obviously the learned Additional Commissioner has failed to take notice of this side of the case, may be because, it was not argued before him from this point of view. THIS point has been examined by the Board in appeal No. 13 (Jaipur) 1959 - Harinarain Vs. Ramprasad and others decided on 18. 6. 60. It has been observed there that ordinarily if a date of hearing is declared a public holiday of which no previous notice was given to the parties it is desirable in the interest of justice that fresh notices should be issued for the information of the parties to attend on the next day of hearing. THIS has been, as far as known to us, the practice obtaining in all the revenue courts including the Board of Revenue". We do not find any provision in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Mannual laying down that if the date fixed up for hearing of a case turned out to be a holiday, the case would automatically be taken up on the day next thereafter when the court re-opens. When it is so and there is no other law which makes it obligatory upon the parties to be present in the court on the day next after such a holiday, exparte proceedings cannot be taken against any party remaining absent on such a day. Any order passed on such a day would obviously be deemed to have been passed without any previous notice to the parties and therefore not a judgment in accordance with law which requires that it would he passed, after giving a chance of hearing to the parties, immediately thereafter nor on a next date of which due notice shall have been given to the parties. Any judgment passed without having not previously informed the parties of the date on which such a judgment is to be pronounced would therefore begin to operate for purpose of limitation against the parties from the date on which the intimation is received by them about the decision of the case and not from the date the judgment was written and signed. If any authority is needed on the point it would be found in AIR 1927 Lahore page 839. The judgment under appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner would therefore begin to operate against the applicant only from the date he received the notice thereof, and not from the the date that it was passed. As stated above the learned Additional Commissioner has not examined the case from this point of view and his order treating the appeal to be time barred therefore deserved to be set aside on this ground alone. The learned Addi. Commissioner has, therefore, obviously failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in this case.

(2.) WE, therefore, accept this revision set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 9-12-60 and remand the case back to him to reexamine the point of limitation in the light of the observation made above and decide in accordance with law. .