NANDA Vs. UDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950 against the order of the Additional Collector, Ajmer dated 30.9.59 in the confirmation proceedings in a revenue case decided by the court of S.D.O. Kekri. Briefly the facts are that the respondents Uda and others filed an application under sec. 104 of the Ajmer Tenancy Act complaining dispossession by the petitioners Nanda and others, before the S.D.O. Kekri who by order dated 28.3.59 rejected the application. The proceedings for confirmation under sec. 182 of the Ajmer Tenancy Act were conducted by the Additional Collector, Ajmer who after hearing the parties refused to confirm the order passed by the S.D.O., quashed it and directed that the petitioner Nanda and others be ejected from the land in dispute. Against this order of the Additional Collector, Ajmer this revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) The Only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the proceedings u/s. 104 of the Ajmer Tenancy Act being akin to sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were disposed of by the trial court S.D.O. Kekri on 28.3.59. By that time the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was extended to the Ajmer District by the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957 on 15.6.58, as a result of the merger of the Ajmer Union territory with the Rajasthan State. The Ajmer Tenancy Act was repealed as a result of the extension of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to Ajmer. Sec. 206 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was applied to all pending cases in the Ajmer Revenue Courts automatically. Under the aforesaid section the proceedings under question are considered as deemed to have commenced under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and not under the Ajmer Tenancy Act. The counsel therefore argued that when the trial court passed the order on 28.3.59 no confirmation proceedings could be taken before the Additional Collector, Ajmer and only an appeal lay against such order to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Therefore the order of the Additional Collector dated 30.9.59 was illegal for the simple reason that he had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal. In support he cited the case of Shri Chandmal Vs. Shri Choga reported in RRD 1961 page 214. The learned counsel for the respondent however argued by saying that the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act would not apply to this case as it was commenced under the repealed Act of the Ajmer Tenancy Act and the forum for confirmation provided under that Act would apply. The Additional Collector, Ajmer was therefore fully empowered to entertain the confirmation proceedings and to dispose of the suit. In support he cited the case of Jaskaran vs. Bhanwarlal, RLW 1959 page 172. He also referred to case of Hardayal vs. Changani RRD 1958 page 1. The latter case referred to by counsel for the respondents could not be examined as the same was not traceable.

(3.) For the disposal of the revision,only a point of law involved is to be considered. The question before us is whether against the order of the trial court of S. D. O. Kekri an appeal lay to the Revenue Appellate Authority or the former Additional Commissioner or the confirmation proceedings by the Additional Collector were properly conducted. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner RRD 1961 page 214 is no doubt a case law on this point. It has been held in the above case that the language of sec. 206 sub -sec. (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act left no doubt that the suit though commenced under the provisions of Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act should with the promulgation of Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957 be deemed to have been commenced under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and should be heard, tried and determined thereunder. This suit was commenced as a suit for ejectment under sec. 104 of the Ajmer Tenancy Act similar to sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In the above ruling the learned Members have followed the decision of Shri Dhola Vs. Shri Bhagwana decided on 15.11.60 and relied on the opinion expressed by Changani, J. of the Rajasthan High Court on the matter in the case of Bharun Vs. Haridas reported in 1960 RLW 357. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the respondent can be distinguished on the ground that in that case the subsequent amendment of the Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance providing for the forum of the appeals from the order and decree of the civil Judge could not be given the retrospective effect. It was for this reason that Modi, J. in Jaskaran Vs. Bhanwarlal held that the appellate forum of the original case would be determined at the time when the suit commenced in a particular civil court and the appeal at that time from the order of the Civil Judge lay to the District Judge and not to the High Court. The Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance amendment of 1951 did not make an express provision for transferring pending appeal cases to the High Court of the value of Rs. 5,000/ - and above. Whereas when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 came to be applied to the Ajmer territory sec. 206 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into operation and made an express provision for the pending cases in the following words - -