KISHANLAL Vs. DALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed in appeal by the Additional Collector, Udaipur dated the 8th June, 1962. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents husband Dalla, now expired, filed an application under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act claiming himself to be a recorded sub -tenant of the petitioner Kishenlal for grant of Khatedari rights in his favour. The Tehsildar granted the respondents application against which the petitioner unsuccessfully appealed before the Additional Collector, Udaipur.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent that this was essentially a case of a mutation proceedings and the order was passed by the Tehsildar under sec. 133 read with sec. 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Against such order a second appeal lay before the Revenue Appellate Authority and this revision before the Board was premature and incompetent. The counsel urged that under sec. 133 of the Land Revenue Act, this khatedari right was acquired by the respondent and he accordingly applied for mutation in the record of rights. It was essentially therefore a mutation matter and no revision lay against this order as remedy by way of second appeal was available to the aggrieved party. In support he cited I.L.R. 1954 page 106. The counsel for the petitioner replied by saying that the order passed by the Tehsildar and upheld by the Collector was not an order concerning mutation proceedings as no form relating to the mutation was ever prepared and the procedure laid down for attestation of the mutation proceedings in the Land Record Mannual was never followed in as much as the entry proposed to be made was not attested in an open assembly. It was, therefore not an order under sec. 133 read with sec. 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, but it was an order merely under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which order was appealable if passed by the Tehsildar before the Additional Collector and a revision lay to this Board.

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced on this preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent and examined the record. The question before me is whether this order relates to a mutation proceeding under sec. 133 read with sec. 135 of the Land Revenue Act or it is an order passed by the Tehsildar under sec. 19 of the Act. It is clear from the impugned orders before me that this was essentially an order under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and not a mutation order u/sec. 133 or sec. 135 of the Land Revenue Act. This order was passed by the Tehsildar in exercise of the power to confer khetedari rights on a recorded sub -tenant. It is different that ultimately after the order has been passed declaring that the respondent has acquired khatedari rights that a mutation would be called for in the record of rights, but before such a mutation is made a procedure has to be gone through by a Tehsildar in order to determine whether a person has acquired khatedari right under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or not. In my opinion this was an order under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and therefore a revision against the order passed by the Collector in appeal was competent before the Revenue Board. Thus the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent is untenable.