POONA Vs. SOMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Collector, Udaipur in a case regarding grant of bapi rights to Khema, Jeeva etc.

(2.) Khema, Jeeva and others in whose favour bapi rights were granted by the S.D.O. Sarada did not put in appearance despite notice and hence the case was heard ex parte against them. Put briefly the facts of the case are that Khema and others applied before the S.D.O. Sarada on 27-9-54 for grant of kharamdar or bapi rights on the ground that they had been cultivating the land since Smt. 1997. After examining the village patwari and two other witnesses the S.D.O. passed an order on that very day granting bapi rights to Khema. Jeeva etc. (9 persons in all). Puna, Limba etc. 20 persons filed an appeal against this order before the Collector on the ground that they had been in possession of the land in dispute and had been cultivating it, that Khema, Jeeva etc. were not eligible for grant of bapi rights, that the S.D.O. took undue interest in the case inasmuch as he was under transfer orders and yet he completed the proceedings in the night with great haste, even though his successor had reached Sarada to take over his place and that the application presented by them before the S.D.O. raising objections to the grant of bapi rights in favour of Khema, Jeeva etc. was not at all heard and determined and has not even been placed on record. The Collector held that as Poona and Limba were not parties before the lower court, they could have no right of appeal. But as the S.D.O. had acted with grave illegality in the matter, he has referred the case to the Board under section 18 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act for orders, with the opinion that the proceedings conducted by the S.D.O. be set aside and a further enquiry be ordered in the case.

(3.) A mere glance on record is enough to show that the learned S.D.O. acted with grave irregularity in deciding this case. As provided in section 51 of the Kanun Mal Mewar, 1947, a bapi patta can be granted only on payment of nazrana to be fixed by a revenue Officer. The S.D.O. took no steps to comply with the provisions of this section. In fact even the elementary principles of natural justice were not observed in deciding the case. It has been alleged before us that another case was going on between these parties before the same S.D.O. wherein the possession over the land in dispute was being asserted by one party and denied by the other. Under the circumstances it was essential that the other party should have been given an opportunity to contest the claim put forth by Khema and others for grant of bapi rights. The expeditious disposal of cases by revenue officers is certainly desirable but this would not justify undue haste or a deliberate disregard of the elementary principles of natural justice or the prescribed procedure. In this case all procedure was thrown to the winds and the proceedings were conducted with such post haste speed as would undermine the very foundations of administration of justice and public confidence therein. We would, therefore, accept this reference, set aside the order of the S.D.O. and remand the case back to him with the direction that it be tried and decided afresh in the light of the observations made above. A copy of this decision be sent to the officer concerned for future guidance. Order accordingly.