CHETANDAS Vs. BHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Shri Chetandas preferred an application for correction of entries in Khasra -girdawari for Smt. 2016 in respect of certain lands situated in village Kerwaval, Tehsil Alwar, Distt. Alwar. The application was enquired into by the S.D.O. Alwar in his capacity as Land Records Officer. The opposite party filed their reply. The evidence of the applicant was recorded on 21.6.60 and the case was adjourned for recording the evidence of the opposite party which was taken on 28.7.60. The case was further adjourned for hearing the arguments to 22.8.60. On this date the applicant and his counsel failed to put in appearance. The learned S.D.O., therefore, dismissed the application, not on merits,but in default. An appeal was preferred by the applicant against this order which was objected to preliminarily on behalf of the opposite party on the ground that no appeal is provided u/S. 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order of dismissal in default passed u/S. 63 thereof. This was conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant and he made a request that the case be heard in revision. This request was granted by the learned Division Bench hearing the case. As the learned D.B. observed, the Board has been treating appeals as revision in suitable cases.

(2.) The learned Members of the D. B. thereafter felt that in the peculiar circumstances of this case the revision deserved to be accepted and the order of the learned S. D. O. set aside. But since it had been held by another D. B. of this Board, to which one of the learned Members of the D. B. hearing this case was also a party (Case No. 65/Churu/59, Ramsingh and others Vs. Adisal Singh & others, decided on 20.2.60) that when no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction or excess or failure thereof had been pointed out interference in revision in an order dismissing a case in default cannot be made, the learned Members thought it proper to refer the present case for decision by a larger Bench. They were, however, quite clear that it was under the peculiar circumstances of the present case that they wanted a decision by a larger Bench and were not at all attacking the decision in the Churu case referred to above. This is how this case has come before this Full Bench for hearing today.

(3.) An objection was raised in this case before the learned Members hearing it originally, that the appeal having been preferred by the applicant to the Board of Revenue in their capacity as Director of Land Records, it could not be treated as a revision on the ground simpliciter that the Director of Land Records was not empowered to entertain any revision. This point is being raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party, Shri Narendra Singh Chordia, here also. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Advocate General in this behalf. It is not, and cannot be, denied that the Board of Revenue as such has full powers to hear any revision against any order passed by any subordinate officer or court subject to the provisions of sec. 84 of the Act. This section provides that the Board may call for the record of any case of a judicial nature or connected with settlement in which no appeal lies to the Board if the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or him by law, or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of it or his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit. That the present case is a case of a judicial nature is undisputed. That no appeal lies under sec. 65 of the Act against an order of dismissal in default passed in any proceedings by any Revenue Officer under sec. 63 thereof is also quite clear and is not contested by the learned counsel for the opposite party. The revision will, therefore, lie to the Board in the present case ; and interference can be made with the order of the Land Records Officer below if there is a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an assumption of excess jurisdiction or any illegality or irregularity in the exercise thereof.