GULIA Vs. ABDUL SHAKOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 27. 4. 61 by which he has rejected the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of the Asstt. Collector, Chirawa, dated 30. 6. 60 with the observation that no appeal was provided against the order under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, against the order passed under sec. 187 (B) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as amended by Act No. 22 of 1960. THIS case has got a chequered history. The opposite party No. 1, Abdul Shakoor, made an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance on 12. 9. 53 to the anti Ejectment Officer, Jhunjhunu against the applicants, Gulia and Lunia and others opposite party No. 2 to 7 praying that he should be re-instated upon the disputed land because of his having been ejected therefrom under a process other than provided by law. The then Jagirdar of the land was also impleaded as a party. As a result of the resumption of Jagir since, he is represented now by the State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Udaipurwati opposite party No. 8. The application was rejected by the learned. Anti Ejectment Officer on 19. 8. 54. A revision was preferred to the Board. It was accepted on 13. 5. 59 and the case was remanded to the S. D. O. , Nawalgarh with the direction that it should be decided afresh in accordance with law after hearing the arguments of the parties. The reason was that it was found that the trial court had not viewed the case in a proper perspective. On the remand the case was re-decided by the learned Asstt. Collector, Chirawa on 30. 6. 60, and opposite party Abdul Shakoor was ordered to be reinstated on the disputed land. An appeal was preferred against that order to the learned Addl. Commissioner, Jaipur, who rejected the same with the observation referred to above. The learned Addl. Commissioner after discussing the various provisions of law and authorities cited before him came to the conclusion that Sec. 206 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act did not affect the substantive law, but prescribed only a procedure for the trial of cases pending at the commencement of this Act; that sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which could at the utmost be taken to be akin to the provisions of sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance having also been deleted by Act No. 22 of 1960, this lis could not be taken to be under sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act; and that thereafter sec. 187 (B) was more akin to the provisions of sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, both of which provided summary remedy without any right of appeal, and therefore the applicants could not be deemed to have any right of appeal against the order directing the ejectment from the disputed land.

(2.) THIS revision therefore involves very important points of law for determination, viz. , No. (1 ). On the setting aside of the decision of the learned Anti Ejectment Officer dated 19. 8. 54 and the remand of the case for re-hearing and redecision by the Board, will the case be deemed to be pending before the learned trial court under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance or under Sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. No. (2): by the time the case came to be decided by the learned Asstt. Collector, Chirawa, sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act too having been deleted what provision of law shall be deemed to be heard and decided u/s. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 or under sec. 187 (B) thereof. No (3 ). Whether an appeal would lie against the order of the Asstt. Collector, or a revision would lie direct to the Board. It may be stated here for the sake of clarification that the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance did not provide for any appeal. Under sec. 10 (2) thereof only a revision was provided. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act did however provide vide sec. 225 (1) thereof an appeal against an original order. Vide sub-sec. (2) thereof no second appeal was provided. But a revision did lie under sec. 230 thereof to the Board. The course of appeal or revision will, therefore, depend upon the finding under what law the lis shall be deemed to be pending in the learned trial court after the remand by the Board.