BHAIRUN Vs. TH DEVI SINGHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, against an appellate decision of the Additional Settlement Commissi-cner,rajasthan,jaipur,dated 21-10-1953 in a case relating to entries in the parcha chakbandi.

(2.) THE circumstances that gave rise to this revision are that on 14-6-1951 Shri Ladu Ram Joshi, Kamdar Thikana Chitora, presented the following application before the Settlement Officer - "sidha Shri Mahakma Bandobast Swai Jaipur Jog likhi kamdar Thikana Chitora ke mujro banchavsaji apranch bid thikana Chitora ki zamin ke jisko galti se bandobast he Amin ne zamindaron ke nam darz kardi. Yah galati hai. Tamam Zamindar mojud hain janch karlijavey aur jo zamin zamindaron ke nam Darz hogai hai uski durusti farmai jaoe va thikana ke nam darz farmaiyave. " It appears that some persons were present at the time of the submission of this application and they were examined by the Settlement Officer. It was, however, Subsequently, realised by the Settlement Officer that all persons who were going to be affected in the case were not present before him hence forwarded the papers to the Assistant Settlement Officer with the remarks that he should proceed to the spot and make enquiries there. THE papers reached the A. S. O. on 16-6-1951. On 15-8-1951 the A. S. O. proceeded to the spot. THE Kamdar Thikana Chitora submitted a statement before him containing 10 columns. Columns Nos. l,2,3and 4 relate to the khasra number,area,and khatedar tenant of the land in dispute Column No. 5 was headed as Tasdiq Moqa. Column No. 6 was the heading of the 'entry to be made'. In column No. 5 of the statement appear thumb impressions and in column No. 6 the A S. O. passed an order that the land in dispute be entered as maqbuza Thikana in the final order that was passed by the A. S. O. It was laid down that the Thikana may be informed of the decision and that it was not necessary to inform the Kashtkars. THE tenants went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer,who held the same to be barred by limitation. Never-the-less he made some amendments in the decision of the lower court. Both the parties filed appeals before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, THE appeal of the Thikana was allowed and that of the tenants was rejected. Hence this revision.