MANGILAL Vs. CHOTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to a Bench of five Members : - "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of the Larger Bench, whereby the State Govt. has been held to be competent under sec. 83 to call for record of any nonjudicial proceedings (the words judical and non judical being interpreted in the light of conclusions in paras 29 to 31 of the said decision), held by the Board or any of its Members, will not be against the Spirit and clear provisions of sec. 8 of the Land Revenue Act under which the Board of Revenue has been held to be the highest court of appeal, revision, and reference in Rajasthan ?"

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the reference are that two second appeals under sec. 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, relating to allotment of land were heard bo a Division Bench consisting of two Members Shri Ram Singh and Shri Niranjan Singh. THE learned Members found that it has been consistently held by the Board in a number of cases that no appeal lies to the Board in non-judicial matters. Thus in Khamba Ram vs. Kalu Ram (1963 R. R. D. 306) a Division Bench held that appointment of a Lambardar was a non-judical matter and consequently appeal lay to the Board. Similarly in Munsif Ali vs. State of Rajasthan (1966 R. R. D. 66) another Division Bench held that allotment of land was a non-judicial matter and consequently no appeal lay to the Board. THEre was then a turn in 1968 R. R. D. 130. What happened was that three appeals Bhanwarlal vs. State, Bhanwar Singh vs. State and Om Singh vs. State were heard by a Division Bench consisting of two learned Members Shri R. N. Madhok and Shri G. B. K. Hooja. THEy all related to allotment of land and when a first appeal was presented to the Addl. Collector, he, saying that he has no jurisdiction, refused to entertain the same and returned it for presentation to the proper court. When it was presented to the Revenue Appellate Authority, he too did the same thing. Thus no court was prepared to entertain the first appeal. THE appellant, therefore, approached the Board in second appeal. That second appeal was heard by two learned Members Shri R. N. Madhok and Shri G. B. K. Hooja. THEre was a difference of opinion between them. THE matter was then referred to a third Member and it was heard by Shri S. L. Kakar whose judgment is reported in 1968 R. R. D. 130. THE learned Member noticed that there have been certain amendments in secs. 75 and 76 of the Land Revenue Act with the result that in respect of a right of appeal, there was no more any distinction between judicial and non-judicial matters the effect whereof was that since those amendments, appeals lay to the Board of Revenue in nonjudicial matters as well.