SAJJANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against appellate judgment of the Collector Jhunjhunu dated 18. 3. 50 by which he has confirmed the action of the Tehsildar in demanding rent for the disputed land from the applicant.

(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The learned counsel for the applicant has himself conceded that there has been any excess or failure in the exercise of jurisdiction on behalf of the learned revenue officers below in this case. The only point urged is that there has been committed an illegality and material irregularity in the exercise of the same. But the learned counsel has not been able to explain how. To justify an interference in revision u/s 84 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, or sec. 230 Rajasthan Tenancy Act there must be established, besides other points, that the matter decided was not within the jurisdiction of the subordinate officer or court. Or that he or it had acted with grave a illegality or with material irregularity in the exercise of its or his jurisdiction. There can be deemed to have occurred such an illegality or irregularity only when the manner in which the jurisdiction has been exercised is unlawful or irregular. It is not the legality or otherwise of the decision itself which can be looked into by the revising authority. It is only the method adopted that can be examined, and no more. Similarly in determining the regularity or otherwise of the proceedings also, it is the manner of procedure adoptead that alone can be examined by the revising authority, and no more. No such detect in manner or procedure has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant. What he has attempted to submit is only that the applicant was not a 'tenant and not liable to pay 'rent' and that Sec. 93 of the Raj. Tenancy Act did not apply to his case but that his case came u/s 90 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and should have been decided only thereunder. In the first place no such objection on the basis of distinction between Land Revenue' or 'rent' had been raised on behalf of the applicant before the learned Tehsildar or the learned Collector. Nor has the applicant been ever able to establish anywhere so tar that he was liable to pay land revenue alone and not rent. Besides the distinction attempted even now by the learned counsel for the applicant does not hold good in this case. The learned Tehsildar and the learned Collector took the applicant to be a 'tenant and therefore rightly held him to be liable to pay 'rent' by virtue of sec. 93 Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Whatever objections were raised on behalf of the applicant have been decided by them ; and we cannot hold that there has been committed any illegality or irregularity in the manner of deciding them.