GIRDHARI Vs. BHORIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under sec. 12(2) - -Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 - -against an order of the S.D.O. Gangapur dated 7.12.53 in a case relating to execution of reinstatement order passed under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as will. It is abundantly clear that the order or the lower court is based upon a misconception of law and facts. As is clear form the record, Bhoriya was impleaded as an opposite party in the application presented for reinstatement. Hence it cannot be denied that he is a person bound by the order. The arguments advanced by the lower court that no notice was served upon him and he was not given an opportunity to present his case are absolutely irrelevant for purposes of the present case. Similarly the opinion expressed by the lower court that Korani cannot be regarded as a tenant within the meaning of the term Tenant, as defined in the Ordinance is of little significance The learned S.D.O. should understand that the duty of the executing court is to execute the order as he finds it and he has no jurisdiction to go behind it, so as to challenge its validity on the ground of some irregularity in the procedure followed in the case. We cannot help observing that the order for reinstatement was passed in 1949 and though a period of six years had elapsed the actual reinstatement has not taken place as yet, specially when Bhoriya had himself stated in December, 1949 that he would surrender possession immediately after harvesting the crop that was then standing. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and direct that Bhoriya being a party bound by the order should be removed and possession of the land in dispute be transferred in favour of applicant.