BISHVESHWAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by a Division Bench, and arises in the following circumstances :

(2.) Shri Bishveshwar, petitioner, instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Sirohi, for recovery of Rs. 5000/- on 6-2-1937, against Thakur Balwant Singhji Jagirdar of Thikana Pandly, as legal representative of Tiwari Shiv Lal and Mst. Champa. It was transferred to the Court of Revenue Officer by the Civil Judge by an order dated 16-7-1938. On 31-8-1945, the suit was dismissed for default. It was restored by the Hevenue Member of Sirohi State by order dated 28-11-1948. The defendant filed a revision- before the State Council of Sirohi against the order of restoration, and it came before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, for disposal. The revision was heard by Shri Chhail Behari Lal, Member of the Board of Revenue, who recorded an order that "Subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague, I would accept the revision petition! and set aside the order of restoration passed by the Revenue Member, Sirohi State, on 28-11-48." Shri Kishen Puri, another Member of the Board of Revenue, concurred with the order of Shri Chhail Behari Lal, and the order of the Revenue Member, Sirohi, was thus, set aside. Bishveshwar filed this petition, and it was contended, among other things, on his behalf that only one Member of the Board, Shri Chhail Behari Lal, heard the parties, and the concurring Member did not near the parties, and, there fore, the order passed by the Board was contrary to natural justice, and should be set aside.

(3.) In respect of the above contention, there was some conflict of opinion in this Court. In an unreported case -- 'Rajaram v. Revenue Board of Rajasthan', Writ Appln. Ho. 44 of 1951 (Raj) (A), a Bench held that there was no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue, when the case before the Board was heard, by one Member and concurred by another without hearing the parties. In -- 'Nathmal v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Jaipur', AIR 1952 Raj 46 (B), another Bench made observations that the Rule which authorised two Members of the Board to hear and decide a case without forming a Bench, and enabled a second Member to act without hearing the parties, was contrary to the provisions of Section 13 CD of the Board of Revenue Ordinance. The 'case of Rajaram (A)', was distinguished on the ground that while the 'case of Nathmal (B)', was a second appeal before the Board, the 'case of Rajaram (A)', was being dealt with by the Board in the exercise of its revislonal jurisdiction. A third Bench of this Court, --'Bhoransingh v. Revenue Board of Rajasthan', AIR 1953 Raj 4 (C), took the view which was taken in 'Rajaram's case (A)', without, however, referring either to 'that case' or to 'that of Nathmal (B)'. The Division Bench, which heard the present case, was of opinion that the view taken in 'Nathmal v. Board of Revenue (B)', was more in accordance with law and natural justice, not only in the matter of appeals, but in the case of revisions as well, where the order of the lower Court was being set aside. It was pointed out that in the case of a revision two classes of cases) could be contemplated. In one class the revision may be dismissed, in which case it is the petitioner alone who can have a grievance and the dictum that a petitioner is not entitled to be heard as a matter of right in revisions may be applicable. In the second class of cases, where the revision is allowed, all principles of justice would require that no order made in favour of the non-petitioner be reversed unless he is granted an opportunity of being heard.