PANNA Vs. KHET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are all connected revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the common respondent Khetsingh against the order passed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, dated the 20th April, 1962. Since these revisions raise a common point of law for decision, therefore this one judgment disposes of all these applications.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent Khetsingh claiming himself to be a khatedar tenant filed an application under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act claiming compensation for the khatedari rights acquired by the petitioners as sub -tenants under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act over his Khatedari holdings. The trial Court accepted the application and granted the compensation and the first appellate court confirmed the decision taken by the trial Court, the Asstt. Collector. It is against these impugned orders that the present petitioners have come up in revision before me.

(3.) Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma on behalf of the petitioners contended that the respondent was the Ex. Jagirdar of these holdings in dispute and he had already received compensation for the resumption of his jagir land and now asking for compensation of the khatedari land, he would be obtaining compensation twice for the same land. He further contended that the respondent was not the khatedar of the holding in question, but was only a Jagirdar of that land. The counsel Shri Dhonkalsingh on behalf of the respondents replied by saying that the respondent no doubt was a jagirdar and as such he obtained his compensation for the resumption of his jagir land but there is nothing to prevent him from receiving payment of compensation in his capacity as a khatedar of which the petitioners are admittedly sub -tenants. The counsel urged that he is a recorded sub -tenant of the holding and this Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the record. He further argued that the petitioners before the Asstt. Collector have already filed applications admitting themselves to be sub -tenants and praying for payment of compensation by instalments. There was no material irregularity in the decision of these concurrent findings of the two courts below and no revision could possibility lie against such order. In support he cited R.R.D. 1957 page 271, R.R.D. 1953 page 196 and R.I.R. 1947 P.G. page 14b.