PARWATI Vs. JAGNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the appellate order of Collector, Tonk dated 23rd February, 1961 by which he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of the Tehsildar Aligarh dated 18th April, 1960.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the opposite party Jagan Nath made an application on 16th November, 1959 that he had been cultivating Khasra Numbers 1166 and 1868 situated in village Uniara for a very long time and that therefore the Patwari should be ordered to enter him as Khatedar thereon. He also produced a copy of the Khasra Girdawari from Samvat 2010 to 2014 to support his allegation. This application was ordered to be entered in the register and a proclamation was ordered to be issued inviting objections. On the next date fixed the opposite party Sri Jagan Nath was examined as an applicant and on the basis thereof notice was issued to the Maufidar of the disputed land Sri Jai Narain, the deceased husband of the applicant before us. It may be mentioned here that an application had been submitted by the opposite party to the Collector, Tonk also on 20th June, 1959 which was forwarded as a matter of routine without even the signatures of the Collector, to the Tehsil. On that application the Tehsildar had taken report from the Patwari about the entries. No further proceedings were taken and in the meanwhile the application referred to above was received. The proceedings thus as a matter of fact started on this later application received on 10th November, 1959. On the next date fixed in the proceedings (27. 11. 1959) the applicant Sri Jai Narain made a request for the grant of time to produce his evidence which was allowed. After that date the case continued to be adjourned at the request of the deceased applicant Sri Jai Narain himself. On 20th February, 1960 the Tehsildar was absent and so was he on the next date i. e. 18th March, 1960. On both these dates the deceased applicant Shri Jai Narain was absent. The case was adjourned to 21st March, 1960 on which date the Tehsildar was present. Because of the absence of Sri Jai Narain or his Vakil the case was decided in favour of the opposite party and he was ordered to be entered as Khatedar thereon on the basis of the Khasra Girdawari and the report of the Patwari. In appeal a special plea was taken on behalf of the applicant that he did not intentionally put in appearance in the Tehsil on the dates the Tehsildar was not present and that as on these dates the adjournment was granted by some ministerial officer he should be treated to have been never informed of the date 21st March, 1960 on which the Tehsildar decided the case against him. The learned Collector did not deal with this point specifically but observed that the applicant was given enough opportunities to produce his evidence which were not availed of by him and therefore the Tehsildar was competent to decide the case in his absence.