NATHYA Vs. BHOLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur dated 21.7.60 by which he has set aside the order of the Tehsildar Kotputli, dated 31.3.60 in a matter for correction of entries in Khasra -girdawari.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The facts of the case are that the opposite party Bholia s/o Ladu preferred an application on 27.2.60 to the S. D. O. Kotputli with the allegation that he had purchased the disputed land through a registered sale deed dated 30.6.59 from one Harbai and had been cultivating it ever since and from before, that his crop was standing thereon even then, that he had come to learn that the previous Patwari had entered two khasra Nos. 294 and 290 out of it in the name of one Bholia s/o Jeeta who had never cultivated it nor was in possession thereof, or in any way concerned with it, and that on the remaining ten khasra Nos. detailed in his application the parentage had been entered to one Jeewan instead of Ladhu. The prayer was that the correction be ordered in favour of the opp. party. This application was forwarded for disposal to the Tehsildar who in his turn directed it for report to be made by the Patwari before 15.3.60. The Patwari made his report on 1.3.60 which remained pending to be put up on the date fixed 15.3.60. The Patwari reported that the disputed land had been purchased by the applicant from Harbai on 3.6.1958 and since then he was in cultivatory possession thereof; that on Khasra No. 284 and No. 259 Moolia s/o Jeeta had been entered in Smt. 2015 and Nathya s/o Balkrishan had been entered on Khasra No. 329 in Smt. 2014, but that the Lumberdars had been stating that ever since the date of registration of the sale -deed the land had been continued to be in the cultivatory possession of the opposite party Bholia; and that over the remaining khasra numbers, the parentage was entered to be Jeewan instead of Ladhu and that in the village there was only one Bholia s/o Ladhu, the opp. party. The opp. party made another application to the Tehsildar Kotputli on 5.3.60 that the report of the Patwari had been received but that 19.3.60 had been fixed in the case by which time the entry in the khasra girdawari would be made in the name of other persons and he will have to face litigation again. He, therefore, prayed that the Tehsildar may kindly reach the spot and have the correct entry made or direct the Patwari to enter the fields in his name. Upon the receipt of this application the learned Tehsildar fixed 11.3.60 and ordered notices to be issued to all concerned to be present on the spot on that date when he proposed to enquire into the matter. On nth March; 60 as he could not go to the spot, he fixed 14.3.60. This date was again postponed to 19.3.60, Notices were, however, issued to all the concerned and the Lumberdars and Patwari were also asked to be present on the site. It appears that the learned Tehsildar did not reach the spot even on the 19th but went there on 21.3.60 on which date also due notices were given to all concerned to be present on the site. On this date (21.3.60) he enquired into the matter and passed an order on 31.3.60 thereafter that the disputed land be entered in the name of Moolia and Nathya, rejecting the application of the opposite party Bholia with the observation that the application had been made only because of the sale deed having been effected in his favour by Harbai who had entered the house of Jeewan deceased in whose name the disputed land had originally stood.

(3.) An appeal was preferred against this order to the Addl Collector Jaipur and holding that the Tehsildar could pass the order that he has as Revenue Officer only between the dates 15th Feb. and 15th of March and not after that, set aside the order of the learned Tehsildar without giving any directions as to what had to be done about the entries thereafter. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred.