PEMA Vs. BHENRUSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order passed in first appeal by Collector, Udaipur on 29.7.52.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that holdings No. 530 and 532 known as Ruparel in village Kalahri in tehsil Udaipur were entered in the name of applicant Pema Dangi at the time of settlement of the village in the year Svt. 1995. The non -applicants Bhenrusingh, Kishore and Dalsingh approached the Naib - Tehsildar Korawar on 17.10.49 alleging that the holding in question was their bapi and was wrongly entered in the name of the applicant and that they were minors at the time of settlement operations. The entry might, therefore be corrected. The Naib -Tehsildar on 11.5.50 submitted the papers to the Tehsildar Udaipur with the report that the holding in question belonged to the applicant and the non -applicants had no claim and that the application deserved dismissal. The Tehsildar Udaipur however did not agree with him and on 14.5.51 passed orders that this land be entered as Bilanam and it be struck off from the khata of the applicant. Thereafter on 4.6.52 the same Tehsildar mutated the land in question in the name of the non -applicants on the basis of a grant of patta by the jagirdar of the village. On 5.10.51 the applicant filed an appeal against the order of the Tehsildar dated 4.5.51 cancelling the holdings from his name. The Collector Udaipur dismissed the appeal holding that it was time barred. It is against this order that this revision has been preferred.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties was heard. A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the non -applicants that in this case a second appeal against the order of the Collector Udaipur lay to the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore the revision to the Board was not entertainable. Counsel for the applicant replied that sec. 26 of Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act No. 1 of 1951 lays down that the Board may call for record of any case decided by it or any subordinate court in which no appeal lay to the Revenue Commissioner, but since no appeal lay to the Board this revision was justified. To support his arguments he referred to A.I.R. 1935 Patna in which the High Court held that though the appeal is not filed to District Judge against the order rejecting the plaint by the Sub -Judge, High Court can interfere in revision. He also referred to the case decided by the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Harchand vs. Revenue Board in which the honourable judges held that in the case Revenue Board had no jurisdiction to exercise original jurisdiction under sec. 10(2) Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance but since the Sub Divisional Officer misconstrued the meaning of sub -clause (2)(1) of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance this amounted to an illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Sub -Divisional Officer and the Revenue Board could, in exercise of its powers of superintendence under sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Revenue Boards Ordinance No. XXII of 1949, take cognizance of the case. Therefore und(r this section of the Revenue Boards Ordinance also the Board can take cognizance of this case.