RAM PRATAP Vs. BANSIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision which has been wrongly described as an appeal has been filed against an order of the Collector, Sikar, dated 18. 1. 1955 in a case relating to allotment of house site.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well In view of the order that we are making in the case we refrain from expressing any opinion upon the merits at this stage. Suffice to observe that the case is governed by a set of Rules known as XIV Rules for Sale of Urban Lands for Residential Purposes ). These Rules are not marked numerically. They are divided into different portions. Portion 'a' deals with general procedure and portion 'b' with special rates where there has previously been long possession of pakka buildings without Patta. Portion 'c' with which we are concerned at present, relates to special consideration for those in kutcha possession, and it runs as follows: "when it is intended to sell any such plot the occupier may be asked, if he wishes, to purchase it himself, and if so what maximum offer he is prepared to make for it. If he elects to purchase and makes a reasonable offer it may be accepted and the Patta issued. If the offer is not fair or sufficient the plot may be put up for sale after usual notification. At such sale the occupier may also make his bid along with other respective purchasers. " The portion after giving some points of procedure with regard to the sale comes to an end. The Tehsildar and the Revenue Officer recommended grant of the land in dispute to the applicants on the ground that they had been in possession of the same since a considerable period. The learned Collector has not applied his mind to this aspect of the problem. He has not examined the evidence of the parties as regards their alleged possession, nor has he said anything as regards the findings of the lower courts. No finding on this point has been given by the Collector. He has satisfied himself with the observation that no title has been established by any of the parties to these proceedings. The question of possession which has been made a basis of preference while determining the desirability of holding the public auction or not is not to be compounded with the question of title. A proprietary question or a question of title belongs to the domain of a civil court and revenue officers have no jurisdiction to investigate the same. While administering the Rules their main function is to decide the question on the basis of possession and the learned Collector was, therefore, not justified in looking to the absence of a decision on title and refusing to go into the question of possession. There has thus been a material illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Collector while deciding the appeal which vitiated the decision given by him. WE would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order passed by the Collector and remand the case back to him with the the direction that the appeal preferred before him be heard and decided afresh in the light of the observations made above. .