KANHIYA Vs. BANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These two applications have been filed by Harji and Kanhiya under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, No. IX of 1949, against an order of the S.D.O. Rajgarh dated 30.11.1950. Both Harji and Kanhiya who are brothers presented applications under sec. 7 of the Ordinance before the S.D.O. and as the facts of both the applications were the same the applications were consolidated and dealt with as a single case by the S.D.O. who dismissed them on the ground that the non-applicants had come into possession of the holdings after due enquiry under the orders of the then Revenue Minister of Alwar State, and the applicants had given up possession of the holdings in dispute after due execution of Dakhalnama in favour of non-applicants and the applicants were estopped from going against it.

(2.) THE revision application presented by Kanhiya had been decided by this Board on 30.6.1951 but on a review application having been filed by Bansi and others that order of the Board was set aside and both the revision application of Harji and Kanhiya have been heard together.

(3.) FROM the facts stated above it is clear that the Revenue Minister had sanctioned the auction and it was as a result of the auction that Bansi and Bhagirath were given fresh pattas of the land and as a result of the grant of patta to Bhagirath and Bansi, Harji and Kanhiya were dispossessed. As the order passed by the Revenue Minister to auction the land was cancelled by him the former order became null and void and any act done in compliance thereof could not be said to have been done under valid authority and any thing done in compliance thereof could be set aside and the parties affected thereby relegated to their previous position. Even if any party had been given possession under such an order the opposite party was entitled to restoration under rule 174 of the rules framed under the Revenue Courts Act 1951 and sec. 144 of the C.P.C. On cancellation of the previous order the man who came into possession in compliance of the previous order acquired no rights. Therefore Harji and Kanhiya were entitled to restoration of possession over the land in dispute on cancellation of the former order by the Revenue Minister.