DEVI SINGH Vs. PANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, dated 12.1.1953 in a case under the Ajmer Merwara Alienation of Land Regulation No. III of 1914. (hereinafter to be referred as the Regulation.)

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. Put briefly the facts of the case are that on 26.1.1951 Mst. Hansi, respondent No. 2, applied before the S.D.O. Bhim, for permission to sell her land under sec. 3 of the Regulation which lays down that no alienation of land shall take affect as a permanent alienation unless and until sanction is given thereto by the Collector. In this application Panna Hamira etc were given out as the would be vendees. This application was forwarded to the Tehsildar Bhim for enquiry. In the meanwhile Devisingh etc., appellants applied before the S.D.O. that they had a better right to purchase the land and hence they should be permitted to purchase the same in preference to Panna etc. It may be mentioned that subsequently Mst. Hansi also refused to alienate the land in favour of Panna but desired that the same should be allowed in favour of Devisingh and others. The Naib Tehsildar after making an enquiry reported to the Tehsildar that Mst. Hansi did not appear to be a woman of mature understanding and hence permission should be refused. The Tehsildar returned the papers on 23 11.1951 for reconsideration. The Naib Tehsildar fixed 4.3.1952 for hearing the case. In the meanwhile Devisingh applied before the S.D.O. that the case had been pending unnecessarily for want of a final decision which maybe expedited. Thus S.D.O. directed the Tehsildar to submit the papers on 16.6.1952 and after examining the same passed an order on the same date that alienation in favour of Devising be sanctioned as he was offering a consideration Higher than Panna and was also in the family of the vendor. Panna went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, who set aside the order of the S.D.O. bhim, dated 16.6.1952 and remanded the case with the direction that Panna should be heard and the case be decided thereafter. Devisingh has come up in second appeal against this order.

(3.) SEC . 3 (2) of the Regulation lays down that the Collector shall enquire into the circumstances of the alienation and shall have discretion to grant or refuse the sanction required by sub -sec. (i). In the present case this provision appears to have been followed in breach rather than in observance. It was mandatory upon the Collector to hold the enquiry envisaged in this section by himself. The learned S.D.O. appears to have contended himself merely with forwarding the application and all the subsequent petitions to the Tehsildar who in turn required the Naib Teh -sildar to investigate them. We find no provision in the Regulation whereby the duty of enquiring into the circumstances can be relegated to any other subordinate officer. The reason for this is not far to seek. The Collector is invented with the discretion to grant or refuse the sanction. In order that he should be in position to exercise this discretion in a judicial and unarbitrary manner it is essential that he should himself hear the parties and come to a decision on the basis of the evidence that may be led before him. This is a elementary principle of natural justice and is bound to be observed even in enquiries of this nature. The learned S.D.O. not only failed to hold any enquiry himself but proceeded to determine the case without having any final report of his subordinate officers or even caring to hear the parties that were interested in the subject matter. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Commissioner was justified in remanding the case. We hope the S.D.O. will bear in mind the observations made above while enquiring into the circumstances of the aliention proposed to be made by Mst. Hansi. With these observations this appeal is hereby rejected.