TEJA Vs. KANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance No. IX of 1949 against the order of the Sub - Divisional Officer Bhim dated 28.8.52.

(2.) THE circumstances which give rise to this revision application are that on 23.7.52. Teja applied to the Sub -Divisional Officer Bhim that four holdings No. 10502 to 10505 were in his possession and that the non -applicants ejected him therefrom and that he should be reinstated in the holdings. The Sub -Divisional Officer Bhim dismissed the application on the ground that the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance of 1949 did not apply to the Bhim tehsil as it was a retroceded area to the covenanting Mewar State. At the time of retrocession in 1938 the Mewar Government had agreed that no new legislation would be introduced in these villages without the previous consent of the Governor General in council, since the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance has not been promulgated after getting the sanction from the Central Government, it could not have the force of law in the above stated retroceded area.

(3.) THE counsel for the parties was heard. In this case the learned Sub -Divisional Officer has challenged the authority of His Highness the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan for promulgating this Ordinance specially its sec. 3 which lays down that the provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law or rule, order, instrument or usage having the force of law in any part of Rajasthan. The question to be decided is whether a Sub -Divisional Officer enjoys powers to give decision or entertain a suit or application in which the authority of Rajpramukh to promulgate a law is challenged. Sec. 7(1) of the Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act No. I of 1951 lays down that all suits and applications of the nature specified in the first and second schedule shall be heard and determined by revenue courts. A perusal of the first and second schedule shows that in the list of suits and applications triable by Collector or Sub -Divisional Officer, no law under which he could exercise powers to decide such a case has been made such a subject and the S.D.O. has also not shown any other. Thus it is clear that the subject matter under issue is not cognizable by the highest revenue court much less by a Sub -Divisional Officer. The Sub -Divisional Officer therefore had no jurisdiction to decide this question. We, therefore, accept the application, set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer and remand the case to him with the direction that he shall proceed in the case according to sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance No. IX of 1949 and give his decision according to law.