JAMNA Vs. MANGYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Jamna Kumhar of Damodarpura against whom the opposite party Mangya filed an application under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, for reinstatement. His allegation was that he was in occupation of a certain agricultural property on 1-4-1948, but was dispossessed from it on 6-7-1950. The applicant resisted the application, but the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sawai Jaipur, made an order of reinstatement of the opposite party. A revision was filed against this order under Section 10 (1) of the said Ordinance, but it was dismissed. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and has prayed that in the exercise of the powers of superintendence conferred by Article 227, the order of the Board of Revenue be vacated and the application of the opposite party for reinstatement be rejected.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Ram Avtar Gupta on behalf of the petitioner. The opposite party is present in person, but is unrepresented. The chief argument of Mr. Ram Avtar is that under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, an order of reinstatement can be made only if an application is made within 3 months from the date of dispossession. In the present case, according to the opposite party's own showing, dispossession took place on 1st Asarh Budi 7, which corresponded to 7th June, 1950 and the application for reinstatement was made on 3-10-1950 which was obviously time-barred. He has cited a ruling in the case of -- 'maqbul Ahmad v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh', AIR 1935 P C 85, in which it was held that "section 3, Limitation Act is peremptory and the duty of the Court is to notice the Act and give effect to it, even though it is not referred to in the pleadings. " Mr. Gupta argues that although no objection regarding limitation was taken by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the application of the opposite party ought to have been dismissed as time-barred. He has also referred to the case of -- 'hanuman Prasad v. Ram Autar Baldeo', AIR 1952 Vindh P 10 to show that under Article 227 (1) of the Constitution the High Court has got the powers of general superintendence over the Board of Revenue, and can interfere with its orders under certain circumstances. He has further referred to the case of -' Israil Khan v. The State', AIR 1951 Assam 106 in which it was held that "even if the judgment or order of the Court or tribunal functioning within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court is made final by statute and even if the Court itself is not subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, its judgments or orders may be interfered with in the exercise of the powers of superintendence of the High Court. "