BHURA RAM Vs. JAIMAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar dated 5.4.1962, by which he has only accepted, without granting any hearing to the parties concerned, the report of the Tehsilder, Bhadra, dated 30.3.62. It has been heard ex-parte because of the respondent not having put any appearance despite notice.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 19.3.62 the respondent Jaimal Ram preferred an application to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer complaining that he was continuing to be in the cultivatory possession of the disputed land since Smt. 2016 and that the Gridawari thereof for Smt.2017 had also been done in his name, but that in the current year in which application was being made the Girdawar had intenti-onally made the entry on 15.3.62 in the name of the appellant Bhura Ram. THE prayer was that as under the cover of this entry the crop was being forcibly harvested even though not ripe, the learned Sub-Divisional officer be pleased to inspect the site and pass necessary orders. THE sub-divisional officer forwarded this application to the Tehsildar for enquiry and report. THE Tehsildar went to the spot, made an enquiry into the case and found that the entry during the year in which the application had been made, had been kept in dispute by the Patwari, that the Inspector Land Records had unauthorisedly ordered an entry to be made in the name of the appellant. THE Tehsildar also reported that the cultivation appeared to be that of the respondent Jaimal Ram. It was this report that was sanctioned by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and it is against this order that this appeal has been preferred. Now, vide rule 58(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the time for the inspection of the Rabi crop by the Patwari is, as the crop to be entered in the present case was, from 16th February to 15th of March. Vide Appendix I to Chapter I, Part (VI) of the Rules of " Yearly programme of the work of the Tehsil Revenue Officer. March is the Month fixed for the checking of the Rabi Girdawari by the Tehsildar. Vide same Rule Appendix I to Chapter II, Part (VI) "Yearly programme of the work of the Sub-Divisional Officers" March, is the month fixed for the check of Rabi Girdawari by the bub-Divisional Officer also. Both the Sub Divisional Officer and the Tehsildar could therefore, have entertained and disposed of the application preferred by the respondent to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 19.3.62 before 30.3.62 under the programme referred to above. THE Tehsildar was, therefore, quite within his competence to pass any order or make any report uptil 30.3.62 as he has done. THE learned bub-Divisional Officer did not, however, have any such power after this date ana he could not, therefore, have passed any order on 5.4.62 as he has done. His order, therefore, is clearly without jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, he should not have even sent the) application presented to him for enquiry and report to the Tehsildar. On the other hand, he should have only forwarded it for necessary action or disposal to the Tehsildar, unless he himself wanted to enquire into the matter at the time of his inspection of the Rabi Girdawari (which so apparently never appeared to be the intention of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer in the present case) and in which case he should have kept it with himself. Even if he had asked for the report, he should have returned the Papers to the Tehsildar when the last date of Inspection, 30.3.62, had passed and he had not even inspected the site till then. In this particular case it had been alleged in the application itself that the crop had already been started to be harvested by the appellant and, therefore, there was no standing crop also on the basis of which the learned Sub-Divisional Officer could pass any order after 30.3.62, as has been observed by the Board in Ramsingh Vs. Ghinsi, 1961 RRD 126. Besides, he could not have passed any order without granting to any party and without even inspecting the site and making enquiries on the spot in the presence of the parties. THE order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer thus was not only without jurisdiction but also suffered from illegality and irregularity besides having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice themselves inasmuch as it was passed without granting any hearing to the parties.