LADHU RAM Vs. HANUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that the opposite party made an application to the Gram Panchayat Luniyawas alleging that the present applicant Ladhu Ram has obstructed the Rasta AN (Public way) leading from villages Luniyawas and Turkiyawas to Sonlyakawas and Bajyakawas and praying that the obstruction should be ordered to be removed. After taking the evidence and inspecting the site the Gram panchayat passed an order on 10th September, 1961 whereby the present applicant was directed to keep open the aforesaid public way to the extent of 12 ft width. A fine was also imposed on the present applicant under sec. 27 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1953. In the matter of the public way the Panchayat purported to act under sec. 2511 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Gram Panchayat the present applicant preferred an appeal to the Additional Collector Jaipur. THE ground taken by him was that the panchayat had no jurisdiction under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to order the opening of way in question. This appeal was rejected by the learned Additional Collector by his order dated 9th February, 1962. However, the learned Additional Collector set aside the fine imposed by the Gram Panchayat on the present applicant.

(2.) BEFORE us the learned counsel for the applicant has raised the contention that the Gram Panchayat could not be legally invested with the power to act under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. However this argument is not at all relevant. Sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is restricted in its scope and does not apply to disputes regarding public ways. On the contrary it deals only with private rights of way or other easements. The Gram Panchayat in this sense was in error in construing the case to be one under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. However this does not make any difference because the Gram Panchayat was fully competent to deal with obstructions to public ways under Item II (i) of the Third Schedule of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. Likewise the Panchayat was competent to impose a fine under sec. 27 of Panchayat Act. Therefore the mere citation of sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the order of the Gram Panchayat does not render the order invalid because the order is competent under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. The present applicant questioned the order of the Gram Panchayat in the court of the additional Collector as if it was an order under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the learned Additional Collector without looking into the nature of the dispute fell into the error of treating it as under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As a matter of fact the appeal brought by the applicant in the Court of the Additional Collector was not competent under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and if at all any redress could be given by the Collector it was under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. As it is the learned Additional Collector has acted as an appellate authority for the purpose of sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in him under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The impugned order of the Additional Collector, therefore deserves to be set aside.