RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. DALPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Deputy Collector Jagir Pah dated the 21st October, 1961, preferred u/s 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Jagirdar.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the State that this appeal is time-barred. The memo of appeal had been presented on 25. 1. 62. Calculating from 21. 10. 61 the date of judgment, the memo appears to have been submitted on the 95 days instead of within 90 days permitted vide sec. 39 (1) of the Act. On behalf of the appellant various allegations have been made to justify the delay viz. the judgment has been wrongly dated to have been written on 21. 10. 61, and the presence of the counsel for the appellant before the Dy. Collector Jagir on 21. 10. 61 has been wrongly shown. None of these arguments is, however, worth giving any consideration whatsoever. It is a well settled principle of law that the proceedings of a court shall be presumed to have been taken on the date and in the manner they have been shown to have been taken. Simply because of an affidavit by counsel or any party their validity cannot be doubted. There is, however, a particular circumstance obtaining in the present case which cannot be overlooked. It is that the proceedings of the case continued in the presence of the legal adviser to the Government and counsel for the appellant upto 31. 8. 61 when the case was fixed for 21. 9. 61 pending the receipt of the order of the recognition of the title of the appellant to the jagir from the Jagir Commissioner. After this date the case was not taken up on 21. 9. 61 as fixed. Instead it was taken on 3. 10. 61. The order of this date states that it was put up on receipt of the file. The presence of the appellant as well has not been recorded on this date. Nor could he be possibly present that day when the date had not been fixed and the parties had not been called. On this date, 3. 10. 61, the case was ordered to be put up on 21. 10. 61. There is no direction, however, on the order-sheet to issue any notice to the parties on that date. On 21. 10. 61 the judgment was written and pronounced on the basis of the evidence produced and the arguments heard about 5 or 6 months earlier. The Code of Civil Procedure has not been made directly applicable to the trial of such cases by the Deputy Collector Jagir. R. 45 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Rules 1954 however, does lay down that in contesting cases the enquiry shall be made in the manner provided by law for the trial of a suit in a Revenue Court and in un-contested cases in the manner provided by law for the trial of an application by a Revenue Court. Procedure for the trial of cases by a Revenue Court is what is laid down in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Sec. 208 thereof makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable thereto except when found to be inconsistent with the provisions of that Act. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act does not provide any special procedure for the trial of cases by the Revenue Courts. It means that the same procedure as has been provided by the Code of Civil Procedure will have to be followed, if not in letter at least in spirit, by the Officers trying the cases under the Act as well. Now, O. 20, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that the Court shall pronounce judgment in open Court after the case has been heard, either at once or soon thereafter as may be practicable on some future date. Further, it lays down that if and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future date, the court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. The learned Deputy Collector Jagir was, therefore, bound to inform the appellant of the date on which he wanted to pronounce the judgment.