UDAILAL Vs. KESHORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the appellate judgement of the Commissioner, Udaipur dated 4.9.1959, in a proceeding u/s 186 of the the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before its amendment. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record as well.

(2.) The applicant preferred an application to the Asstt. Collector Udaipur for reinstatement on the disputed land because of his having been wrongfully dispossessed there form. The opposite party raised preliminary objections to this application instead of filing his reply thereto. The objections were that the application did not contain full particulars of Rules 73 and 75 of the Rules framed by the Board to enforce the provisions of the sec. 186. The learned trial court rejected these objections. The opposite party therefore went up in appeal to the learned Commissioner, who upheld the objections and on this ground alone dismissed the application of the applicant. Hence this revision. Rule 73 requires that the application u/s 186 shall contain the particulars given therein, viz. name, parentage, caste and residence of the applicant; name of the village along with name of Tehsil and District; name of Thokor Patti ; name, parentage, caste and the residence of the land -holder; name, parentage, caste etc. of the person now in possession; khasra number of the fields, area of the fields, annual rent of the holding, and the date of ejectment or dispossession. Rule 75 enables the Asstt. Commissioner to issue notice if the application is found to be in accordance with the provisions of Rule 73 or 74. Rule 74 requires that the applicant shall file along with his application as many copies of it as there are land -holders and other persons in possession to be served with notice. No particular proforma has been prescribed for the application u/s 186, although a proforma has been prescribed for the issuing of the notice to the land -holder or others, which is required to be in Form Z vide rule 78.

(3.) An examination of the application preferred by the applicant would go to show that it contains almost all the particulars required by Rule 73 excepting the rent of the disputed land. Of course, it does not even cite the land holder nor has made any request to issue a notice on the land holder. But it is an admitted position between the parties that the land -holder in this case on the relevant date was the State of Rajasthan and not any other person. It is also quite clear from the application that it was only the opposite party who had been alleged to have taken wrongful possession of the disputed land and no other third person. Nor any damage has been claimed in this case.