BHOLA Vs. PYARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against and order of the S.D.O. Bharatpur granting protection to the opposite party under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The only ground urged by the counsel for the applicant in support of his revision application is that the trial court had erred in holding that the land in dispute was kham land and as such the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance was not applicable to it. It is an admitted fact that the land in dispute once belonged to one Sitaram who is reported to have died issueless more than 10 years ago and that the land is now being managed by the Tehsil. By the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, Amendment Order, 1949, sec. 15 was inserted in the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, which reads as follows : - "The Government whenever it thinks expedient to do so, may, by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, exempt, either wholly or partially and either for a specified period or permanently any person or class of persons or any lands or class of lands in any part of Rajasthan in which this Ordinance is in force from the provisions thereof." In exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the Rajasthan Government issued a notification No. 46/X/49 in Gazette No. 56 dated 20th August, 1949, whereby it was notified "the provision of the said Ordinance shall not apply to kham lands and other lands in the Alwar and Bharatpur Districts left by Meos and Muslims who abandoned their holding in 1947". The meaning of kham lands as given in the glossary attached to the Bharatpur Revenue Code is "without masonry; not assessed permanently; direct management of estates by Tehsils". The last definition is relevant to the present case. According to the definition given in the Bharatpur Revenue Code all lands managed directly by the Tehsil are kham lands and are excluded from the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance by virtue of the Government notification dated 20.8.1949. Since the land in dispute is admittedly managed by the Tehsil and the applicant himself admits to have been given a patta for the previous years by the Naib Tehsildar, Kumher, there is no reason to doubt the applicability of the aforesaid notification to the land in dispute. In the circumstances, the trial court was justified in holding, as it did that the provisions sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, were not applicable to this land. There is thus no force in this revision which is hereby rejected.