HARDEO Vs. RAJASTHAN REVENUE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is an application of one Hardeo under Art. 226 of the Constitution, of India against the judgment of the Rajasthan Revenue Board dated the 13th March 1951 setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nainwa, dated the 20th November 1950 and ordering reinstatement of Onkar and Madho in respect of field No. 301 of the area of 5 bighas and 7 biswas on Pipliwala well in village Gambhiri. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner here that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction under sec. 7 of the Tenants Protection Ordinance, 1949, because no relationship of landlord and tenant had been pleaded by Onkar and Madho when they filed an application for reinstatement in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nainwa, on the 5th of September 1950. The case of Onkar and Madho was that they had purchased field No. 301 from Hardeo a few years back and were in possession thereof up to the 5th of September 1950 when they were forcibly dispossessed by the opposite party. They sought the jurisdiction of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer under sec. 7 of the Tenants Protection Ordinance and prayed that they might be reinstated. The opposite party Hardeo in his written statement pleaded that as per application of Onkar and Madho they were not entitled to any relief under the Tenants Protection Ordinance and they should be directed to go to a Civil Court, as they did not come on the basis of tenancy. Hardeo, however, alternately pleaded that he had let that field to Onkar and Madho but he had taken back the possession of the land in the month of Jeth and that the petition was time-barred. A judgment of the Panchayat Board of Bamangaon dated the 4th September 1950 was also produced by Onkar and Madho in support of their claim of the ownership of the land. By that judgment, the claim for rent of Hardeo was disallowed by the Panchayat Board. The Sub-Divisional Officer found in favour of Hardeo that Onkar and Madho were not the tenants of Herdeo. In his judgment, the Sub-Divisional Officer went further and referring to certain Revenue records specified that Onkar and Madho were Jotas. The Board of Revenue in exercise of their powers of revision under sec. 10(2) of the Tenants Protection Ordinance held that a Jota is a sub-tenant and Onkar and Madho being sub-tenants were entitled to protection under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. The Board of Revenue failed to notice the case of Onkar and Madho that they had not sought the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of tenancy but they had come before him on the basis of their title acquired through purchase from Hardeo.

(2.) ONKAR and Madho have failed to appear before us and they have also not filed any reply to this petition of Hardeo.