SURAJMAL Vs. HAJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Board, which heard the appeal by Surajmal against the Revenue Appellate Authority's order of 11th March, 66, has referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench of the Board : - "does the power of the village Panchayat to decide mutations in consequence of Government Notification No. F. (185) Rev. B/157 dated 11-9-57 extend to cases arising out of the operation of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act?"

(2.) THE Hon'ble Members constituting the Division Bench felt that the decision of the appeal depended upon the decision of the question whether the power of deciding mutation cases resulting from the acquisition of Khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act vest in village Panchayats as a result of Notification of 27th October, 1956 and 11th September, 1957 issued under clause (b) of sec. 260 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and quoted in the decision of (his Board in the case of Balu vs. Ramdeo reported as 1969 R. R. D. page 66 or not ?

(3.) ANOTHER common ground is that, as held by this Board, in the case of Balu vs. Ramdeo, (1969 R. R. D. page 66), whatever powers have been given by secs. 133 and 135 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to the Tehsildar, stand delegated by the relevant notifications to the Gram Panchayat in respect of areas falling in its jurisdiction. Gram Panchayats can decide all those, disputed and undisputed, cases where, as a consequence of the provisions of sec. 133 and sec. 135, the Tehsildar could have ordered mutation. In other words the Gram Panchayat has the same powers as the Tehsildar has under these sections; only the territorial jurisdictions of the two authorities differ. The Gram Panchayat would, therefore, be acting without jurisdiction in exercising the powers of the Tehsildar in sec. 19 (1) cases only if it could be shown, and it is held, that the Tehsildar's powers to decide such cases are not the result of the provisions of secs. 133 & 135, but of some other provisions.