CHUNIA Vs. REVENUE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Chunia for issue of a writ, presumably a certiorari, quashing the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 29-12-1952, by which that Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant.

(2.) The facts, which have led to the present application, are these. A suit was brought by Deva, opposite party, against the applicant and his father Dalchand. It was originally filed in the Court of Munsif of Bhilwara in 1947. It was transferred under Section 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, to the Court of S. D. O. Bhilwara. That Court decreed the suit on 29-31952. There was an appeal by the present applicant to the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed. Then followed a second appeal to the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed on 29-12-1952. Thereafter, the present application was made in this Court on 15-1-1953.

(3.) Three points are urged on behalf of the applicant in support of the plea that a writ of certiorari be issued by this Court quashing the order of the Board of Revenue. It is first urged that an issue of proprietary right was raised by the present applicant before the trial Court, and an issue should have been framed under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, and snould have been referred to the civil Court for decision, and thereafter the suit should have been decided in conformity with the decision of the civil Court. Inasmuch as this was not done, and the issue was not referred to the civil court, the revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the suit. Secondly, it is urged that on the death of Dalchand, father of the applicant, his other sons were not brought on the record. The suit, therefore, abated in toto, and the revenue Court was not right in granting a decree against the applicant holding that the suit had not abated against him. Lastly, it is urged that the applicant was protected under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance (No. 9) of 1949, and could not have been ejected by the revenue court, and inasmuch as a decree for ejectment has been passed against him, there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record and this Court should interfere.