SADARIA Vs. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 11-8-1952, Bhomla, respondent No. 2, made an application under Sections 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (9 of 1949), to the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Sikar, for restoration of possession on the allegation that he had been driven out of the land on 3-7-1952, by Sadaria and Jhunta petitioners. The Anti-Ejectment Officer allowed the petition after notice to the opposite party, and the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 10-11-1952. It is urged that the Rajas-than (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, was promulgated by the Rajpramukh who had no powers to do so, and, in any case, it had ceased to have the force of law after the expiry of the period provided for its duration, and that its extension for two years by Notification No. F 1(2) Rev./50 dated 14-6-1951, was ultra vires. Certain other pleas as to the legality of the Ordinance were taken in the petition, but were given up .at the time of arguments. It was, however, argued that on the merits also, there was an error apparent on the lace of the record, and the Board of Revenue had exercised a jurisdiction contrary to the .express provisions of Section 145, Cr. P. C., and that respondent No. 2, Bhomla, should have been directed by the Board to file a regular suit, as in certain earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cr. p. C., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had declared the petitioner Sadaria to be in lawful possession of the well, and entitled to remain in such possession unless dispossessed according to law.

(3.) The Ordinance No. 9 of 1949 was issued by the Rajpramukh on 21-6-1949. The State of Rajas-than was formed on 7-4-1949, and by Article 10(3) of the Covenant, the Rajpramukh was authorised to make and promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good government of the State of Rajasthan. The Ordinance No. 9 of 1949 was enacted in exercise of the said powers, and was, therefore, a perfectly valid piece of legislation on the date it was enacted.