GAYA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, dated 11. 3. 54 accepting the recommendation of the Assistant Collector, Hindaun whereby the khatedari of the land in dispute standing in the name of Ramchand was cancelled and the applicant was ordered to be ejected therefrom.

(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. The proceedings commenced with a report of Bhagwat Ram Patwari to the tehsildar alleging that Ram Chand khatedar had unauthorisedly granted a sub-lease of khasra No. 1183 to Hukmi and Gaya Parshad Mahajan for storing stones and hence suitable action be taken against him. Notices were issued both to Ram Chand and Hukmi Gaya Parshad. Ram Chand denied having granted any permission to Hukmi Gaya Parshad for collecting stones and alleged that suitable steps have been taken by him in the matter before the Assistant Collector. Hukmi and Gaya Parshad, however, stated that they had obtained the land on rent from the khatedar. The Tehsildar observed that as the khatedar had failed to substantiate his plea, he was liable to ejectment and that Hukmi and Gaya Parshad should be required to pay Rs. 5/-p. m. till their ejectment. The Assistant Collector agreed with this recommendation and submitted the papers to the Collector who approved it. Evidently the Collector and the Assistant Collector omitted to examine the relevant provisions of the law on the subject. As laid down in sec. 84 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, a tenant becomes liable to ejectment from his holding on the ground of any act or omission detrimental to the land or inconsistant with the purpose for which it, was let. The procedure to be followed in such cases is laid down in sec. 85. If on service of notice by the Tehsildar a tenant contests the notice, which was evidently done in the case by Ram Chand Khatedar, the tehsildar shall forward the case to the Nazim who shall try it in accordance with the procedure laid down for the trial of suits. This was not done and the case was submitted by the Nazim to the Collector. The order, therefore, cannot be upheld. It may be observed that the application in revision has been filed by Gaya Parshad. In a proceeding under sec. 84 any person claiming through the tenant may be joined as a party and where the cause of action is based on any sub-lease or other transfer, the sub-lease or transferee should be joined as a party. The Nazim in trying the case as a suit will keep in view these provisions of law. WE should, therefore, allow this revision set aside the orders passed by the lower courts and remand the case to the court of the Assistant Collector, Hindaun, with the direction that it be tried and decided afresh in the light of the observations made above. .