BALY Vs. NARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision taken against the order of the Additional Collector Bhilwara dated 12.2.62, whereby he rejected the appellants appeal against the order of the Tehsildar Sanada dated 24.11.61, the only point involved is whether the Khatedari rights could have been conferred on land admittedly entered in the revenue record as "Manfuxsaran", meaning "land reserved for the flow of water. The learned Tehsildar, on the advice of the Government Lands Allotment Committee, has conferred the Khatedari rights on the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 on Khasra Nos. 753/1 one Biswa and 753/2 one Biswa on the basis of long possession. The learned Addl. Collector Bhilwara has also rejected the appeal only on this basis, knowing fully well that the land was reserved for the flow of water as "Manfuxsaran". Now, on a land reserved for the flow of water, Khatedari rights cannot accrue vide Sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. This will be so notwithstanding any possession thereon. Besides, vide Sec. 101 the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the land can be allotted for agricultural purposes by a Tehsildar only subject to the Rules made by the State Government from time to time in this behalf. It was the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957, which were in force at the time the learned Tehsildar passed the order. R. 4(1) thereof very clearly prescribes that lands mentioned in sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act shall not be available for allotment for agricultural purposes under these rules. The allotment made by the Tehsildar was, therefore, absolutely without jurisdiction. This very important point of law escaped the notice of the learned Addl. Collector also and he too erred in the same manner as the learned Tehsildar in thinking that Khatedari rights could be conferred on any person only on the basis of possession. Neither the possession can confer any such rights nor can they be conferred on land u/s 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act even by any Allotting Authority. One can be a Khatedar on a land either under the provisions of sec. 13 or sec. 15(1) or sec. 15(5) or sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or secs. 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. None of these provisions applied to this case. Very clearly, therefore, the orders of the learned Revenue Officers below are not only erroneous but also without jurisdiction. This revision is hereby accepted; the orders of both the Revenue Officers below are set aside, and it is hereby ordered that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 shall not have any Khatedari rights over the land under dispute.