NATH RAJ Vs. SAYARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four second appeals field against the appellate order of the Additional Commis-sioner Udaipur were decided in favour of the appellants by an order of the Revenue Board dated 27th March, 1953 and the allotment of agricultural land made by the lower courts in favour of respondents was ordered to be cancelled. The respondents presented four review petitions before the Revenue Board and the same were accepted with the result that the orders of the Revenue Board dated 27-3-1953 were set aside and the appeals were readmitted to be heard by the Division Bench concerned.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant Nathraj was a muafidar of village Bindyka, Tehsil Badi Sadri and the respondents who wanted some land for purposes of cultivation applied the Tehsildar Badi Sadri asking for allotment of 50 bighas of land to each of them in this village as Shikmi tenants. THE application was forwarded to the amin concerned who recommended the allotment. THE S. D. O. submitted the case to the Collector who ordered on the 12th December,1950,that if there were no objection the land be allowed to the respondent and entries in the records be made. Instead of disposing of the objections of some of the cultivators and other residents of the village, against this allotment on the ground that there was a dearth of agricultural and grazing land in the village and that if any allotment of land was to be made at all it should be given to the residents of the village who had not sufficient land with them to cultivate the Tehsildar ordered the entries as to be made in the name of the respondents and consigned the application of the objectors to record. THE same Tehsildar also asked the amin to fix the boundary marks of the land attached to the respondents. Nathraj the appellant who is the muafidar of the village having known this filed an application before the Collector praying that the order given by the Tehsildar be cancelled. THE Collector sent this application to the Tehsildar for report. In the meantime. Nathraj the appellant filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner Udaipur, against interim order of 12-12-1950 made by the Collector. THE Additional Commissioner rejected the appeal and held that the allotment of land in question made by the subordinate officers was in accordance with the powers vested in them. In second appeal, the Revenue Board observed that the allotment of land was ab initio irregular inasmuch as the Tehsildar made the allotment contrary to the orders of the Collector and in a surreptitious manner. In review, however, this order was set aside. Accordingly we have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case.