GANESH Vs. NATHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Ganesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution paying for a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order,

(2.) THE facts out of which the present application has arisen are these. Nathmal opposite party, applied to the Tehsildar, Bikaner, for grant of a plot of land in village Kismidesar on Raiyatana. THE matter was enquired into by the Naib-Tehsildar and eventually the Tehsildar recommended that the particular piece of land asked for should not be granted, but another piece of land, not very far from it, might be granted to Nathmal, THE file was then submitted to the Assistant Collector, Bikaner (North) for sanction and he sanctioned the grant of this other piece of land of Raiyatana to Nathmal on the 18th of April, 1953, Later when Nathmal began constructions on the land so granted, the applicant Ganesh, whose house is adjacent to the land granted to Nathmal, made an appeal before the Commissioner, Bikaner Division. This appeal was allowed by the Commis-sioner and the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside. THEreupon, Nathmal preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue. THE Board treated it as a revision and set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the order of the Assistant Collector. THEreafter, the applicant has come to this Court and his contention is that the Board had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Commissioner, which was final and, therefore, the order of the Board should be quashed by us. Reliance in this connection is placed on the Statement of Powers issued by the Government of the former State of Bikaner in 1964, Appendix D, page 34 item 16. This item deals with giving of land to poor settlers on Raiyatana. THE order giving the land is to be passed by the Nazim who is shown in column 6 to have full powers for the purpose. THEn in column 5, it is mentioned that the Revenue Commissioner has appellate powers from orders so passed. THEre is no further provision for any appeal or revision against item 16 and the applicant, therefore, urges that the order of the Commissioner was final and the Board of Revenue had no power to interfere in appeal.