MISHRILAL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD PUSHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 25 of the Rajasthan Biswedari and Zamindari Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 30. 4. 1962.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant Shri Misrilal, on the enforcement of the Act and as a consequence of the abolition of the Biswedari and Zamin-dari, made an application for the declaration of the disputed land, admittedly an agricultural land not under the Khudkasht of the appellant himself, as his private property under sec. 6 of the Act. Such an application was triable by the Collector of the district himself. He could, however, delegate such powers to the Sub-Divisional Officer in terms of sec. 36 (2) thereof. He did confer such powers on the Sub-Divisional Officer vide Notification No. Rev. 1-k-174d. 12th Nov. , 1954. That Notification purported to confer powers under sec. 6 read with Rules, 6,7, and 8 of the Rules made under the Act and not under sec. 9 also with which we shall deal shortly. This application was decided by the learned Sub Divisional Officer acting as the Collector under the delegated powers in favour of the appellant and the case remained there, no appeal having been preferred against that order. After about a year thereof the Municipality of Pushkar came forward with the petition on which the present proceedings have arisen alleging that the Sub Divisional Officer had exercised only the powers delegated to him but that there was a genuine dispute about the land which could be decided only by the Collector under sec. 9 of the Act. It was also contended before the learned Collector to whom this application was submitted that the powers delegated were only under sec. 6 of the Act and Rules, 6,7, and 8 referred to above and not under sec. 9 also and, therefore the Sub Divisional Officer could not have passed any order under sec. 9 regarding the dispute over this land and that, therefore, the learned Collector should pass necessary orders under this provision of law. This application was contested vehemently on behalf of the appellant who completely denied all the facts and contended that full powers had been delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding all such cases and that the matter was res-judicata in view of the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer passed under the powers delegated to him. At the time of the hearing, objection seems to have been pressed on behalf of the appellant that the power delegated were under sec. 9 of the Act also and not under sec. 6 alone and that it could only be the provisions of Rule 45 of the Rules made under the Act which would apply for the trial of such cases. THE learned Collector upheld the latter objection but did not touch the order and he ordered that the case be put up for the framing of issues on the next date. An appeal was preferred against this order to the Revenue Appellate Authority presumably under the provisions of sec. 24 of the Act. It was rejected. THE learned Revenue Appellate Authority has discussed the case in an elaborate judgment and held that the powers delegated vide Notification referred to above could by only those relating to sec. 6 of the Act and not under sec. 9 thereof as well. Hence this second appeal.