DWARKADASS Vs. LALSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision under sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur, dated 15. 12. 54, setting aside the appellate order of the Collector, Jhunjhunu in a case relating to recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) THE opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice and hence the case was heard ex parte. After examining the record, I feel constrained to observe that this case provides a nice illustration of denial of justice proceeding from the failure of the Revenue Officer to study the law which he is required to administer within his charge. On 5. 12. 53 one Dwarka Dass through Rameshwar Lal Mathur applied to the Tehsildar Jhunjhunu with the allegations that Dwarka Dass was a pujari of 921 bighas kham land of Mandir Shri Mataji in Mukandgarh town, that there were about 50 tenants of the land who were refusing to pay their rents and hence one murat be deputed to make collections on behalf of Dwarkadass. THE Tehsildar, without caring to ascertain the law which should be held applicable in the case or without caring to conform even to the elementary principles of natural justice which demand a hearing of the parties concerned as a condition prior to making a decision, ordered that the Bhandari should arrange for the deputation of a murat. THE tenants refused to make any payments to Dwarka Dass and alleged that they were tenants of Thakur Lal Singh. THE Murat finding success in his mission impossible requested for the deputation of police force. However, the murat appears to have succeeded in realising Rs. 817/-/9 from some of the tenants, others having refused flatly. THEreafter the question arose as to how this money should be dealt with. THE tenants had stated clearly that no part of it should be given to Dwarka Dass as according to them he had no right to receive rents from them. Thakur Lal Singh claimed the entire amount for himself and so did Dwarka Dass. THE Tehsildar relying on a decision of the Board, but without making any intelligent effort to appreciate the points decided by the Board, held that Dwarka Dass be given Rs. 168/8/3 being the amount received from five persons against whom he had obtained a decree previously for arrears of rent which was eventually confirmed by the Board in the judgment referred to above. Dwarka Dass went up in appeal before the Collector Jhunjhunu who held that Lal Singh had no title to receive any amount realised by murat and hence Dwarka Dass was allowed to have the entire amount. THEreupon Lal Singh went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who held that there was no general refusal to pay rent by the tenants and even if there was, the Collector alone had the authority to take action under sec. 126 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act and hence the order of the Collector was set aside. Dwarka Dass has come up in revision against this order.