MISRI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by one Misri under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, against Changa, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur Division (Alwar ). It is stated by the petitioner that he owns certain lands in village Talfara, Tehsil Kumhar, which were in the occupation of Changa and were delivered to him through the agency of the Tahsildar of Kumhar on the 12th June, 1948. But after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenants (Protection) Ordinance, 1949, on the 21st June, 1949 Changa filed an application under sec. 7 of the Ordinance in the court of the Special Sub-Divisional Officer Bharatpur, for restoration of possession over the disputed land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, it is said, on the 15th of September, 1949 allowed the application and ordered Changa to be put in possession of the said land. A revision application was moved by Misri, the petitioner, before the Revenue Board of the Matsya Union of the State of Rajasthan by virtue of Rajasthan Administration Ordinance, No. 1 of 1949. In the place of the Matsya Revenue Board, Rajasthan Board of Revenue was established by the Ordinance (No. 22 of 1949) and by sec. 19 of said Ordinance the Matsya Union Board of Revenue was abolished. Cases which were pending before the Matsya Revenue Board were transferred to the Rajasthan Revenue Board under sec. 19 of the said Ordinance and the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, at Alwar was specially appointed by the Government under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Ordinance to dispose of the pending cases. The revision application of the petitioner thus came before the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his powers of the Revenue Board and it was allowed on the 9th of March, 1950 and the order of the Special Sub-Divisional Officer reinstating Changa in respect of the said land was set aside. Changa then moved a review application before the Additional Commissioner, which was allowed on the 17th June, 1950 and by which the order of the Additional Commissioner of the 9th March, 1950 was cancelled and order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated the 15th September, 1949 was restored. Misri then moved a revision application before the Rajasthan Revenue Board but he did not succeed as, on the 31st March, 1951, the Rajasthan Revenue Board decided that it had no power to hear a revision application against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner who was performing the duties of the Revenue Board under sec. 19 of the Board of Revenue Ordinance. Misri then filed this application before this court and prayed that the order of the Additional Commissioner of the 17th of June, 1950 be declared to be without jurisdiction and that he be ordered to be put in possession of the disputed lands. Both Changa and the Rajasthan Board of Revenue filed written statements and it was stated by Changa that he was in the occupation of the land and that possession was given to the petitioner on the 12th of June, 1948 but it was not in accordance with the process of law and that his application under the Tenants Protection Ordinance was competent. It was further stated that the revenue authorities reconsidered the case and on the 8th of April, 1950 the previous order by which possession had been transferred to the petitioner had been set aside and he was ordered to be put into the possession of the land. Nothing was said by Changa as regards the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to hear a review application. The Board of Revenue however in its reply said that the Additional Commissioner was competent to hear review applications against his own decisions.

(2.) MR. Rastogi on behalf of the petitioner has laid emphasis on the following four points at the time of the hearing of this petition: - (1) that the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur Division at Alwar was a persona designate, under s. 19 of the Rajasthan Revenue Board Ordinance and that no powers to review his own decisions was given to him by the statute. His order of review was therefore without jurisdiction. (2) that even if it be assumed that the Additional Commissioner had any such powers of review the Additional Commissioner in the present case disregarded the provisions of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and exercised his powers of review on the grounds which could not be made the basis of a review petition in this case. The case in Kotaghiri Venkata Subbamma Rao vs. Vellanki Venkataram Rao (1) (I. L. R. 24 Mad 1.) has been cited on this point. (3) that the petitioner got possession of the land under a process of law by sec. 7 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance an officer acting under sec. 7 had no jurisdiction to interfere in this case, and (4) that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and on this ground the decision of the Additional Commissioner which he gave in exercise of his powers of review should be held without jurisdiction.

(3.) IT may be noted here that in view of the decision arrived at on the point noted above it is not necessary to deal with the other points raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner in this case.