DEVIA Vs. DAULAT KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. 3 of) 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made by the Collector, Chittorgarh vide his order dated 1st August, 1961 against the order of the Tehsildar, Begun dated 7th November, 1960 in a case for the compensation of trees under section 80 of the Act.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this reference are that Srimati Daulat Kumari preferred an application for compensation of certain mango trees amounting to Rs. 1500/-before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Begun which was transferred by him to the Tehsildar. THE Tehsildar referred it back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Begun in terms of Section 217 of the Act, but it was returned with the observation that the Rules had been framed in that behalf. THE Tehsildar accordingly proceeded with the enquiry into the application. After a number of adjournments caused due to the absence of the Tehsildar, Devia appeared and he was granted an opportunity for filing a written statement. Before it could be filed the Tehsildar inspected the site and thereafter again at the request of Devia gave him an opportunity to file the written statement. He then recorded the evidence of the applicant before him, Srimati Daulat Kumari, and as the opposite party before him Devia and others made a default in appearance he gave an order awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 1500/ -. This order was passed on 7th November, 1960. Devia and his other companions preferred an appeal against it to the Collector, Chittorgarh on 17th Jan. , 1961 in which,besides attacking the decision on merits, it was also alleged that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to try the case and that the site was inspected behind their back and the enquiry had not been made in accordance with the Rules in that behalf. Nothing was, however, stated as to why the appeal was preferred so late. When the appeal came in for hearing the first question that cropped up was that of limitation; and the learned Collector held that the appeal was time barred. He, however, thereafter proceeded to treat the application for reference under section 232 of the Act and over-ruling the objection on behalf of Srimati Daulat Kumari, that no reference could be made in an appealable case, proceeded to examine the objection of the appellant before him. He found that the learned Tehsildar had neither framed issues nor passed an order that the case be proceed ex parte against the appellants before the learned Collector but that it was decided only on brief evidence produced by Srimati Daulat Kumari. It was also observed by him that the judgment went against the entries made in the Settlement records. He has, therefore, recommended that the order of the Tehsildar deserves to be set aside and has submitted the case to the Board accordingly for orders.

(3.) WE, therefore, accept this reference, set aside the order of the learned Tehsildar and remand the case to the Collector, Chittorgarh who will transfer it to the competent Assistant Collector for enquiry and decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. .