SUJAN Vs. PARSHADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances that give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated thus. Ordinarily there were seven lambardars in village Chaknwali, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. Three of them transferred their land in favour of Sujan, Chosaria, Parshadi and Shivlal. On proceedings being started for the appointment of fresh lambardars in their places it was found that at the time of last settlement it had been decided that on the lambardari of Latur S/o Balwant falling vacant it may be reduced and amalgamated with others. There thus remained the question of filling up of two posts only, and the Collector of Bharatpur, of the formerBharatpurState,by his decision dated 6 -12 -1947 appointed Sujan and Sosaria as lambardars. Parshadi went up in appeal before the Revenue Commissioner of the former Bharatpur State. By his order dated 20 -12 -1947 the Revenue Commissioner, Bharatpur, on the basis of a compromise alleged to have been arrived at between, all the purchasers decided that all four of them should be appointed lambardars. This was clearly ultra vires of the Revenue Commissioner. Sec. 168 of the Bharatpur State Revenue Code does not authorise Collector or the Commissioner to increase the number of the lambardars. This could have been done only by the State Council, Bharatpur. It is grantifying to observe that the Tehsildar raised these objections to the implementation of the decision of the Rev. Commissioner but before any final decision could be taken the former Bharatpur State integrated with Matsya and eventually with Rajasthan. In the course the matter came up before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, who by his decision dated 2 -5 -1950 cancelled the order of the Revenue Commissioner, Bharatpur, dated 20 -12 -1944 and returned the papers to the Collector, Bharatpur. The Collector Bharatpur after examining the record re -submitted the papers to the Commissoner with the observation that as the decision of the Revenue Commissioner dated 20 -12 -1947 stood set aside, the appeal filed by Parshadi demanded a fresh decision which was within the competence of a Revenue Commissioner. The case came up before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur who passed an order on 18 -2 -1955 which forms the subject matter of this appeal.

(2.) The respondents did not put in appearance despite notice and hence the appeal was heard ex parte. The counsel for the appellants was heard and the record of the case was examined. The decision of the Revenue Commissioner, Bharatpur, dated 20 -12 -1947 was set aside on the ground of being Ultra vires and naturally the appeal filed by Parshadi before him demanded a fresh decision upon merits. The order of the Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 2 -5 -1950 though not expliedly yet impliedly means a reversal of the decision dated 20 -12 -1947 and a re -hearing and fresh decision of the appeal thus becomes inevitable. The Collector, Bharatpur, therefore, pointed out rightly that the case was within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has entirely mis -understood this decision. It has been nowhere stated in the order dated 20 -4 - 51 that the appeal filed by Parshadi shall stand rejected or that the appointment of Suja and Sosaria made by the Collector Bharatpur on 6 -12 -45 shall stand confirmed or cancelled. As pointed out above the decision dated 20 -4 -1951 related only to the point of jurisdiction with reference to sec. 168 of the Bharatpur State Revenue Code. With its setting aside it became evident that the appeal demanded a fresh hearing and decision. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 18 -2 -1955 and direct that the appeal preferred by Parshadi before the Revenue Commissioner, Bharatpur State against the decision of the Collector, Bharatpur, dated 6 -12 -1947 be readmitted and heard and disposed of afresh in accordance with law.