GHASI Vs. GIRDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, which has, however, been wrongly described as a revision, has been filed against an order of the Collector, Jaipur, dated 9.1.1954 in a case relating to appointment of a Patel in a Jagir village,Sahiwad, in the non -jurisdictional thikana of Shahpura.

(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that the residents of village Sahiwad Presented a petition before the Assistant Collector to the effect that Ghasi applicant should be allowed to continue as a Patel in the village. Thereupon the Assistant Collector held an enquiry into the matter and found that originally there were two patels in the village, Dula and Ghasi. Dulas son Goru resigned. Subsequently the opposite party Girdhari was appointed as a Patel by the kamdar of the thikana on a nazarana of Rs. 11/ -. The Assistant Collector regarded this appointment of Girdhari as irregular and ultra vires of the kamdar. But considering the fact that Ghasi and Girdhari had been working as Patels since two or three years and that Girdhari was literate and paying a considerable amount of land revenue he was of the opinion that Ghasi and Girdhari should both be appointed as Patels to the extent of half each in the village. The Assistant Collector submitted his recommendation to the Collector. In the Collectors office a note was prepared on the base of the recommendation received from the Assistant Collector but it was stated therein that Ghasi had failed to prove that he was appointed a Patel by the thikana or that he had ever paid nazarana and hence the office suggested that Girdhari alone should be made Patel in the village. The Collector at first desired to make a reference to the Maji Sahiba but on being told that there was no Maji Sahiba in the village, passed an order that "inform all concerned as per proposals please" We are told that the interpretation of this order has been that Ghasi has ceased to be a Patel. Hence he has come up in revision before us as according to his counsel the order against which he is aggrieved was not appealable.

(3.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. Without going at all into the merits of the case we have first to examine as to whether the order of the Collector is appealable or not and if so where an appeal against the same lies. The learned counsel appearing for Ghasi has drawn our attention to the Jaipur State Patelai Rules, 1931, according to which the Tehsildars had the powers to appoint or dismiss Patels. Appeals against their orders were to lie before the Nazims and second appeals to the Dewan. These rules, however, stand repealed by sec. 2 (i) of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act 1947. The matter is now governed by sec. 33 (i) and (iii) of the Act. Appeals against these orders, as provided in sec. 175 of the Jaipur State -Grants Land Tenures Act, are to be regulated by secs. 116 to 120 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. This scheme shall, however, stand repealed in its turn by the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The result would, therefore, be that the order of the Collector not being an order expressly made final by the Act would be appealable. The first appeal against his order would lie to the Commissioner and second appeal to the Board. We would, therefore, treat the revision as first appeal and return the memorandum of appeal to Ghasi for presentation to the Divisional Commissioner after endorsing necessary particulars thereon.