ISHAR SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents brought a suit against the appellant for correction of entries in revenue papers in the court of the Tehsildar Hanumangarh on 1-8-44, Obviously this was prior to the formation of Rajasthan. The Tehsildar, Hanumangarh by his order dated 13-12-48 transferred the case to the court of the Assistant Collector, Suratgarh of the then Bikaner State set-up, with the remark that the entries would be corrected only through a mutation which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tehsil. After a protracted trial, the Assistant Collector on 29-4-50 dismissed the suit. An appeal against this decision was presented before the Collector, Ganganagar and the same was pending on 31-1-51 when the Raj. Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, was brought into force. The learned Collector, it appears, by virtue of the provisions contained in sec. 6 of the Act treated the pending appeal as having been commenced under the Act and hence dealt with the same in the manner prescribed by the Act. On 7-2-51 the appeal was allowed by the Collector and, the decree of the trial court was reversed. A second appeal was filed by the defendants before the Additional Commissioner, Bikaner, who by his decision dated 25-1-52 dismissed the same as being barred by limitation. The case came up in revision before the Board. The order of the Additional Commissioner was set aside by the Board and the appeal was remanded to the second appellate court with the direction that the question of limitation be decided in the light of the observation made in the judgment of the Board. The appeal was eventually returned by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner to the appellant on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the same and that it should be presented before a competent court. The appeal has therefore been presented before the Board of Revenue.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that regardless of any provisions in the old revenue law of the former Bikaner State to the contrary, the first appeal was decided correctly by the Collector Ganganagar as the matter is covered by item 18, Group D, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. THE decision of the Assistant Collector,suratgarh should be treated as a decision on an application as laid down in sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act and the Collector was therefore, competent to entertain the first appeal as laid down in sec. 19 (ii) of the Act. Second appeal according to him, therefore, lay before the Commissioner under sec. 20 (i) of the Act. THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents has frankly conceded the validity of the statement made on behalf of the appellant. We find ourselves in perfect agreement with the view that the Collector was justified in entertaining the first appeal before him after the commencement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, as the matter is to be decided by an application. THEre may have been contrary provisions in the Bikaner Law whereby such matters were to form the subject matter of a suit but that provision should be deemed to have been repealed by the provisions of Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. We, therefore, hold that the learned Commissioner was not justified in returning the memorandum of appeal. We would, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that the memorandum of appeal be returned by the office of the Board to the Commissioner, Bikaner. , for being proceeded with further in accordance with law. .